Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

bad_teammate · March 22, 2019

Imagine being so awesome that the guy who was hired to find dirt on you reads it all decides you're awesome.

Bernie hires HIllary's 2016 oppo research guy. lol

bad_teammate · March 22, 2019

Bernie's campaign will be the first to purchase carbon offsets for all of its travel

TDunk · March 22, 2019

Are Bernie boner pills slightly blue colored?

Hugo Stiglitz · March 22, 2019

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Imagine being so awesome that the guy who was hired to find dirt on you reads it all decides you're awesome.

Bernie hires HIllary's 2016 oppo research guy. lol

Dude probably blackmailed Bernie to hire him with all the kompromat he found.

/sarcasm

bad_teammate · March 23, 2019

A better link, the full song with Nina Turner (who rules) at the end.

Edited March 23, 2019 by bad_teammate

bad_teammate · March 23, 2019

imgur

From the big San Diego rally yesterday lol

bad_teammate · March 23, 2019

Major turnout for Bernie in LA.

There might 100,000 people at Beto's 3/30 rally in Austin. People are hyped.

bad_teammate · March 24, 2019

Bernie's LA speech.

Fast-forward to Nina Turner (~30:00). She needs to be Bernie's VP candidate. I need to see her against Pence in a debate.

NowThis · March 26, 2019

bad_teammate · March 26, 2019

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

Single-payer

#1: Everyone is guaranteed, no exceptions, no gaps
#2: It's the most cost effective solution

But listen how the fucking cucks are going to focus ENTIRELY on poll numbers. No leadership skills. No vision. No courage. Fuck 'em.

Edited March 27, 2019 by bad_teammate

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

We can afford it. We can fund it.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

Are we actually thinking that utilization management goes away when the government takes over healthcare as a single payer entity? Cause it won't. It will just get turned over to a government bureaucracy. And if the single payer advocates get their most extreme wishes, Americans won't have the ability to shop competing coverage options, leaving a perception of constrained healthcare options rather than healthcare utopia. The reality is that most Americans see some value in a market based dynamic. That's what the polls reflect. Maybe we just jam it down their throats anyways. Sounds like a good approach.

Hugo Stiglitz · March 27, 2019

Another reality is once societies have publicly funded healthcare, they NEVER ever want to give it up.

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Are we actually thinking that utilization management goes away when the government takes over healthcare as a single payer entity?

No, what are you talking about?

Quote

And if the single payer advocates get their most extreme wishes, Americans won't have the ability to shop competing coverage options, leaving a perception of constrained healthcare options rather than healthcare utopia.

lol yes, if there's something that people across the world in single-payer nations hate, it's that they don't have the opportunity to be set adrift in a sea of opaque choices

There are endless riots in Europe about it.

They're in the streets chanting, "END GOVERNMENT FUNDED HEALTHCARE! GIVE US CO-PAYS!"

Quote

The reality is that most Americans see some value in a market based dynamic. That's what the polls reflect.

They know what they've had and are somewhat resistant to change. What market dynamics with regard to healthcare do Americans actually enjoy engaging with? Choosing between the 3-4 plans offered by their employer? Figuring out which hospital they can go to when their kid breaks a leg at soccer practice?

Fuck outta here

Quote

Maybe we just jam it down their throats anyways.

Or we argue policy and vote for candidates who advocate the policies. it's democracy you melodramatic freak

Edited March 27, 2019 by bad_teammate

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, what are you talking about?

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

#1: Everyone is guaranteed, no exceptions, no gaps

The above is just not realistic. There will be exceptions in coverage. There will be utilization management. There will be prior authorization, step therapy or functionally equivalent utilization management. There will be exceptions and gaps. It will just be administered by a government bureaucracy rather than a corporate bureaucracy. Which may be an improvement, but probably won't.

I have tried to engage in discussing some of the detailed policy and health system implications. Hasn't really taken off here. Haven't seen Bernie really address any of the nuances that I have highlighted on your policy thread. Maybe he has and I just missed it? Or maybe posting more tweets will move the needle.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Anastasis

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The above is just not realistic. There will be exceptions in coverage.

Explain.

Yes, we will have death panels and not literally everything will be covered, but everyone will have basic coverage. There will be no exceptions for people having or not having (all will have it). There will be no coverage gaps based on life events (job change, divorce, aging out of parental plans, etc...).

Quote

Haven't seen Bernie really address any of the nuances that I have highlighted on your policy thread.

Well he doesn't post here, so I literally have no idea how you would expect Bernie to address the nuances you've highlighted.

Sanders's bill text

Sanders's funding proposals

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

Clinton voters as racist Kasich voters.

Bernie voters less racist (by FAR) than any.

This isn't a surprise to sane humans, but hey.

link

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Explain.

Read the next few sentences of that post.

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Well he doesn't post here, so I literally have no idea how you would expect Bernie to address the nuances you've highlighted.

Sanders's bill text

Sanders's funding proposals

From his bill, forgive the formatting.

(b) PRESCRIPTION DRUG FORMULARY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish 2 a prescription drug formulary system, which shall 3 encourage best-practices in prescribing and discour4 age the use of ineffective, dangerous, or excessively 5 costly medications when better alternatives are avail6 able. 7

(2) PROMOTION OF USE OF GENERICS.—The 8 formulary under this subsection shall promote the 9 use of generic medications to the greatest extent 10 possible. 11

(3) FORMULARY UPDATES AND PETITION 12 RIGHTS.—The formulary under this subsection shall 13 be updated frequently and clinicians and patients 14 may petition the Secretary to add new pharma15 ceuticals or to remove ineffective or dangerous medi16 cations from the formulary. 17

(4) USE OF OFF-FORMULARY MEDICATIONS.— 18 The Secretary shall promulgate rules regarding the 19 use of off-formulary medications which allow for pa20 tient access but do not compromise the formulary.

This cedes to the secretary broad control over the utilization management programs associated with Bernies M4A program.

Which is fine. UM exists for a reason. But also understand that this is the very same shit that people complain about wrt private insurance. Access restrictions to control costs and shape utilization patterns to reflect cost-effectiveness and the most efficient spend of healthcare dollars. Now I am all for promoting the use of cost effective generics (item 2). Have done so for years here (decades). I understand the use of formularies and best practice guidelines to shape utilization (have detailed here and tos). That's great. All sounds like the same tactics deployed by the (gasp) insurance industry to control costs. Except we turn it over to the government (doesn't sound great).

The reality is that that sounds a lot like the current system that people supposedly don't like. Except run by the government with no opt out. Which I am sure will make it only better and more enjoyable.

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

I don't know what the hell happened to the forum code, but formatting is a nightmare lately.

Quote

This cedes to the secretary broad control over the utilization management programs associated with Bernies M4A program.

Which is fine. UM exists for a reason. But also understand that this is the very same shit that people complain about wrt private insurance. Access restrictions to control costs and shape utilization patterns to reflect cost-effectiveness and the most efficient spend of healthcare dollars. Now I am all for promoting the use of cost effective generics (item 2). Have done so for years here (decades). I understand the use of formularies and best practice guidelines to shape utilization (have detailed here and tos). That's great. All sounds like the same tactics deployed by the (gasp) insurance industry to control costs. Except we turn it over to the government (doesn't sound great).

The reality is that that sounds a lot like the current system that people supposedly don't like. Except run by the government with no opt out. Which I am sure will make it only better and more enjoyable.

You're phrasing the final sentence as sarcasm but... yeah. Government-run will absolutely be more efficient, more accountable, and the lack of out-of-pocket expenses will make it more enjoyable. And that is fairly obvious if you look at basically every single example you could care to cast your eyes around and see.

Don't let sarcasm try (and fail) to do the work of an argument.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

Thanks for fixing that. The forum code leaves much to be desired.

Efficient? Not something I associate with government.

Accountable? Not so much. IMO offering market-based solutions provides the best form of consumer accountability.

Lack of OOP? Bernie's own bill language indicates that this is a pipe dream. See item 2 and "The Secretary shall promulgate rules regarding the use of off-formulary medications which allow for patient access but do not compromise the formulary."

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Efficient? Not something I associate with government.

Whether or not you associate government and efficiency is meaningless if that association is dogmatic and devoid of evidence, which it clearly is.

If not, I'd love some evidence, or at least some kind of argument.

Quote

Accountable? Not so much. IMO offering market-based solutions provides the best form of consumer accountability.

How? Employees are at the mercy of what their employers choose and going out on their own they cannot hope to compete against employers who are buying plans in bulk. There is no free market and there's no rational possibility for a free market.

Quote

Lack of OOP? Bernie's own bill language indicates that this is a pipe dream. See item 2 and "The Secretary shall promulgate rules regarding the use of off-formulary medications which allow for patient access but do not compromise the formulary."

I'm confused what you mean by this. What do generic/non-generic ("off-forumlary/formulary") have to do with out-of-pocket expenses?

Sure, there will be out-of-pocket expenses in places, but they will completely disappear in most mundane cases and be dramatically lower in others.

You're flailing.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

You need evidence of government inefficiency? Uh, Ok.

I think that insurance should be decoupled from employment. I have laid out my perspective on how to balance optimized market dynamics with a catastrophic backstop (government funded) here numerous times.

You are lost on what formulary and non-formulary designations have to do with OOP expenses? No exceptions, no gaps. But I am flailing.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Anastasis

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You need evidence of government inefficiency? Uh, Ok.

And I can show you evidence of private inefficiency. In fact, we can just look at the healthcare industry in which we pay double everyone else per capita.

Quote

I think that insurance should be decoupled from employment. I have laid out my perspective on how to balance optimized market dynamics with a catastrophic backstop (government funded) here numerous times.

Do you also think healthcare should be universal and guaranteed to every single American regardless of age, ability, sickness, wealth, or working status?

Quote

You are lost on what formulary and non-formulary designations have to do with OOP expenses? No exceptions, no gaps. But I am flailing.

I understand how they could be connected, sure, but you need to actually try to make arguments.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you also think healthcare should be universal and guaranteed to every single American regardless of age, ability, sickness, wealth, or working status?

I think that universal catastrophic coverage makes a lot of sense. I think that broad tax free HSAs make a lot of sense. I think that decoupling insurance to fill the gap to catastrophic coverage from employment makes a lot of sense. I think that a safety net makes a lot of sense. I think that competition and market dynamics are a good thing in healthcare.

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I understand how they could be connected, sure, but you need to actually try to make arguments.

I need to explain to you how formularies, like the ones referenced in Bernie's bill work? OK. They are based on establishing lists of preferred and non-preferred agents. These cover both the generic and non-generic spectrum. These lists are typically generated based on a number of inputs including a therapeutic landscape review, clinical input, budget impact, cost sharing, trend and market penetration models, rebate negotiations, and actuarial magic. Formularies by definition involve exclusions. This thing is preferred and covered. This thing is not. Typically, the exclusions are overcome by tiering OOP expenses and perhaps also by forcing the navigation of prior authorization or step therapy utilization management. Formularies are not a bad thing. They can drive cost effective utilization. They are also contrary to a dogma of "Everyone is guaranteed, no exceptions, no gaps." The reality is that there will be exceptions. There will be gaps in coverage. Everyone is not guaranteed. There will be OOP. Bernie's own bill lays a ground work that will actually look very similar to the current approach to coverage determinations (focus on pharmaceuticals here), just run by a single government entity instead of competing private sector entities.

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

- What does "catastrophic coverage" mean? Do you have any real-world examples of this or, at least, any models?

- What do you mean by "safety net"?

- What about people who don't/can't/won't work? How do they pay for health insurance?

There are a dozen more, but those are a good starting point to trying to understand what you're proposing.

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

They are also contrary to a dogma of "Everyone is guaranteed, no exceptions, no gaps." The reality is that there will be exceptions. There will be gaps in coverage. Everyone is not guaranteed. There will be OOP.

Ah, so all of this is you operating in 100% bad faith and reading meanings into my words that I (1) did not intend and (2) attempted to clarify in fairly plain English. And you ignored those clarifications in order to perpetuate the bad faith argument. Makes sense now.

I said, "#1: Everyone is guaranteed, no exceptions, no gaps"

You pushed back with an uncharitable, bad faith interpretation because you think you're 2-3x smarter than you actually are.

So I clarified, "Yes, we will have death panels and not literally everything will be covered, but everyone will have basic coverage. There will be no exceptions for people having or not having (all will have it). There will be no coverage gaps based on life events (job change, divorce, aging out of parental plans, etc...)."

And despite my clarification you push forward with the original bad faith interpretation, because it's basically all you have to operate on, especially since your own proposal is such word salad it wouldn't even be worthy of a think tank.

At no point did anyone argue that the government would pay 100% for literally every single medical treatment, procedure, and desire. Your very Ben-Shapiro-esque quest to slay a non-existent dragon is appreciated, but both unnecessary and counter-productive. People who operate in good faith would understand that the way we speak about universal healthcare exists in a world in which we actually have universal healthcare to look at, so we don't have to invent fantasy interpretations born of talk radio ("everything to everyone always!") and we simply think about the existing models and use those as the frame of reference.

Single-Payer Healthcare is the most economically efficient model we can find to deliver guaranteed, universal healthcare to all Americans. If you've got a model or example to show otherwise, it would be helpful to see either.

Edited March 27, 2019 by bad_teammate

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- What does "catastrophic coverage" mean? Do you have any real-world examples of this or, at least, any models?

- What do you mean by "safety net"?

- What about people who don't/can't/won't work? How do they pay for health insurance?

There are a dozen more, but those are a good starting point to trying to understand what you're proposing.

Catastrophic coverage, safety net. These are pretty straightforward terms and concepts in this discussion.

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Government-run will absolutely be more efficient, more accountable, and the lack of out-of-pocket expenses will make it more enjoyable.

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Lack of OOP? Bernie's own bill language indicates that this is a pipe dream. See item 2 and "The Secretary shall promulgate rules regarding the use of off-formulary medications which allow for patient access but do not compromise the formulary."

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm confused what you mean by this. What do generic/non-generic ("off-forumlary/formulary") have to do with out-of-pocket expenses?

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I understand how they could be connected, sure, but you need to actually try to make arguments.

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I need to explain to you how formularies, like the ones referenced in Bernie's bill work? OK.

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah, so all of this is you operating in 100% bad faith and reading meanings into my words

Typical.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Anastasis

Dropout · March 27, 2019

You’re losing me Ana. I understand the points you are trying to make but it seems like nitpicking. You take issue with the wording?

Under Medicare for all I’m sure there will be exceptions and gaps in extreme cases. Overall millions of lives will be positively affected. Still a vast improvement over the current system. Under Medicare for all there will be OOP expenses like off-formularies. Again I’d wager still a vast improvement over the current system. Bernie’s bill isn’t describing a no OOP expenses pipe dream. It is plainly stated we have our preferred medicines that will be paid for but if you have your own preferences expect to pay extra.

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Thanks for fixing that. The forum code leaves much to be desired.

Efficient? Not something I associate with government.

Accountable? Not so much. IMO offering market-based solutions provides the best form of consumer accountability.

Lack of OOP? Bernie's own bill language indicates that this is a pipe dream. See item 2 and "The Secretary shall promulgate rules regarding the use of off-formulary medications which allow for patient access but do not compromise the formulary."

Is the current system efficient or accountable? What is your choice between Medicare for all and the current system? I understand you have your own perspective on how things should work but who is proposing this? You trust these individuals to do what they say they will do? You trust the markets to not be profit driven? I’ll help you out by quoting you from your link to the prescription drug thread. “Problem is, too many entrenched interests with deep lobby pockets and a totally dysfunctional political system.”

11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Another reality is once societies have publicly funded healthcare, they NEVER ever want to give it up.

That’s because it’s the best option available. Why would they give it up?

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

1 minute ago, Dropout said:

You’re losing me Ana. I understand the points you are trying to make but it seems like nitpicking. You take issue with the wording?

Under Medicare for all I’m sure there will be exceptions and gaps in extreme cases. Overall millions of lives will be positively affected. Still a vast improvement over the current system. Under Medicare for all there will be OOP expenses like off-formularies. Again I’d wager still a vast improvement over the current system. Bernie’s bill isn’t describing a no OOP expenses pipe dream. It is plainly stated we have our preferred medicines that will be paid for but if you have your own preferences expect to pay extra.

The no OOP at point of sale is a pretty common talking point in support of M4A. It's also totally misleading.

Here is the point that I am making.

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The reality is that that sounds a lot like the current system that people supposedly don't like. Except run by the government with no opt out. Which I am sure will make it only better and more enjoyable.

M4A is not going to result in some utopia where utilization management doesn't exist. Given that UM is one of the primary friction points among those that have private health insurance, I think that we are going to find that the sell will not live up to the product. Mantras such as "No Copays. No Premiums. No Deductibles. Ever." are straight up deceptive and in my opinion counterproductive to moving the discussion forward in a meaningful way. Bernie's own bill specifically carves out pharmaceuticals and biologicals from the no cost sharing provisions.

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Catastrophic coverage, safety net. These are pretty straightforward terms and concepts in this discussion.

They aren't. You could actually contribute to the discussion by attempting an explanation and answering simple questions. That would be cool.

- What does "catastrophic coverage" mean, in this context?

There is the Medicare Part D concept which is about making sure co-pays/co-insurance is low after a spending threshhold. But there is also the ACA concept which relates to providing the wider array (the 10 pillars) of healthcare coverage instead of just relating to prescription drugs.

I don't know why it's so upsetting to you that you're asked to talk about your ideas.

- What do you mean by "safety net"?

- What about people who don't/can't/won't work? How do they pay for health insurance?

I see a whole lot of bureaucracy involved with your ideas. Perhaps even more than currently exists.

Quote

M4A is not going to result in some utopia where utilization management doesn't exist.

Do you see the irony in you quoting yourself and responding with this? Because literally no one has said that utilization management doesn't exist in a single-payer plan. It looks different, but it doesn't go away.

But if no one is making the argument I want to fight, I just invent it and quote myself inventing it to prove it exists! BRILLIANT!

Quote

Mantras such as "No Copays. No Premiums. No Deductibles. Ever." are straight up deceptive and in my opinion counterproductive to moving the discussion forward in a meaningful way.

"This quote I made up about an argument I made up is terrible!"

Quote

The no OOP at point of sale is a pretty common talking point in support of M4A. It's also totally misleading.

Both the House and Senate plans call for zero out-of-pocket expenses for covered services. Obviously, uncovered services will require payment, but that's just assumed (again we're in the Anastasis-operating-in-bad-faith realm of the conversation). Within either the Sanders or Jayapal program, however, there is no cost-sharing. If it's covered, the government pays for it and you don't have co-pays/co-insurance/premiums.

Quote

Bernie's own bill specifically carves out pharmaceuticals and biologicals from the no cost sharing provisions.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to see this quoted/referenced specifically.

Dropout · March 27, 2019

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The no OOP at point of sale is a pretty common talking point in support of M4A. It's also totally misleading.

No OOP is a talking point bc it will be that for the majority of Americans. Only in special cases will OOP expenses occur. Running on “no OOP expenses except when using non formularies etc etc” doesn’t have the same ring to it. It also would not be the case for the majority of people. The majority would receive no exception no gap coverage while incurring no OOP expenses. Let’s also remember it is in the bill. Everything you take issue with as being misleading is in plain text for those that actually read.

You then seem to be contrasting Bernie’s plan w Beto’s. Dangerous territory now. What had Beto done that makes you not question him or his motives while at the same time picking Bernie’s apart word for word? This is the issue I have w detractors of Bernie. Let’s objectively look at the options and go w the best one.

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

M4A is not going to result in some utopia where utilization management doesn't exist. Given that UM is one of the primary friction points among those that have private health insurance, I think that we are going to find that the sell will not live up to the product. Mantras such as "No Copays. No Premiums. No Deductibles. Ever." are straight up deceptive and in my opinion counterproductive to moving the discussion forward in a meaningful way. Bernie's own bill specifically carves out pharmaceuticals and biologicals from the no cost sharing provisions.

Who said these things? Who says utopia? Better than what we have now. A step forward. These are more in line w the thought. UM in its current form is profit driven. UM under M4A will be people driven with an emphasis on reducing cost. I’m assuming no cost sharing provisions for pharmaceuticals and biologicals is due to the fact that they are already covered under the formulary options. Why would there be cost sharing if someone opts to go their own way?

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to see this quoted/referenced specifically.

202 specifically excludes pharmaceuticals/biologics and 614 set up the formulary framework with resultant implications I already outlined.

SEC. 202. NO COST-SHARING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, 
including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, be 
imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act, 
except as described in subsection (b).
    (b) Exceptions.--The Secretary may--
            (1) impose cost-sharing with respect to services provided 
        under section 1946 of the Social Security Act, as added by 
        section 204; and
            (2) set a cost-sharing schedule for prescription drugs and 
        biological products--
                    (A) provided that--
                            (i) such schedule is evidence-based and 
                        encourages the use of generic drugs;
                            (ii) such cost-sharing does not apply to 
                        preventive drugs; and
                            (iii) such cost-sharing does not exceed 
                        $200 annually per individual, adjusted annually 
                        for inflation; and
                    (B) under which the Secretary may exempt brand-name 
                drugs from consideration in determining whether an 
                individual has reached any out-of-pocket limit if a 
                generic version of such drug is available.

SEC. 614. PAYMENTS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND APPROVED DEVICES AND 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) Negotiated Prices.--The prices to be paid for covered 
pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and medically necessary assistive 
equipment shall be negotiated annually by the Secretary.
    (b) Prescription Drug Formulary.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        prescription drug formulary system, which shall encourage best-
        practices in prescribing and discourage the use of ineffective, 
        dangerous, or excessively costly medications when better 
        alternatives are available.
            (2) Promotion of use of generics.--The formulary under this 
        subsection shall promote the use of generic medications to the 
        greatest extent possible.
            (3) Formulary updates and petition rights.--The formulary 
        under this subsection shall be updated frequently and 
        clinicians and patients may petition the Secretary to add new 
        pharmaceuticals or to remove ineffective or dangerous 
        medications from the formulary.
            (4) Use of off-formulary medications.--The Secretary shall 
        promulgate rules regarding the use of off-formulary medications 
        which allow for patient access but do not compromise the 
        formulary.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

Just now, Dropout said:

Only in special cases will OOP expenses occur.

Like when utilizing the most commonly used benefit. Outpatient pharmacy services.

Dropout · March 27, 2019

How so? Describe a situation where OOP expenses occur and I’ll show you a special case.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

1 minute ago, Dropout said:

How so? Describe a situation where OOP expenses occur and I’ll show you a special case.

Your three year old has a recurrent ear infection. You go to the doctor. The doctor prescribes cefixime. You go to the pharmacy. They tell you your cost share is $50.

Dropout · March 27, 2019

How is a recurrent ear infection in a three year old not a special case? Is this normal for kids? Especially over the course of a year...

Side note I have two kids and one of them actually gets recurrent ear infections. It’s not a normal case to me. His ear is messed up. Fluid gets trapped back there when he gets sick for some fucking reason no one knows.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

Ear infections are the most common reason for a physician encounter in a child.

Dropout · March 27, 2019

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Ear infections are the most common reason for a physician encounter in a child.

And my cost share would be $50 why?

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

Because the Secretary (hypothetically) set a cost sharing schedule and that is the share for the prescription prescribed by your doctor to treat the ear infection.

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Because the Secretary (hypothetically) set a cost sharing schedule and that is the share for the prescription prescribed by your doctor to treat the ear infection.

SEC. 202. NO COST-SHARING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, 
including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, be 
imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act...

What do you imagine "In General" means?

If the Secretary decided that ear infections and strep and gastro and the most common reasons for kids to see the doctor did not fit "In general" then that Secretary should be removed because it doesn't make any sense in context of the law itself and they are plainly mis-administering the law.

And even if you had that situation:
(1) You could directly demand the bum be thrown out
(2) You could vote out the bum who put the bum in
(3) Pay an absolute maximum of $11/mth while the bums are being thrown out

Also, it's funny that we can dig around in Section 202 Subsection 2(B) of this plan and you ignore every question asked of you.

Hank Scorpio · March 27, 2019

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Because the Secretary (hypothetically) set a cost sharing schedule and that is the share for the prescription prescribed by your doctor to treat the ear infection.

I love it when doctors play lawyer.

Dropout · March 27, 2019

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Because the Secretary (hypothetically) set a cost sharing schedule and that is the share for the prescription prescribed by your doctor to treat the ear infection.

Believe I pay like 10 bucks for the antibiotics prescribed to him now. Pretty sure it’s not cefixime but I’m not a doctor huh so could be wrong. Why would a formulary antibiotic not be prescribed? Or is it that I’ve spent $200 on ear infections over the year?

bad_teammate · March 27, 2019

Bernie's fundraising seems to be going... well.

Goal of 1 million individual contributions before the Sunday, 3/31 filing deadline. He's around 730k right now.

Elizabeth Warren hopes to get 25,000 individual contributions by then.

Go get 'em, grandpa!

GSU&UT · March 27, 2019

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Ear infections are the most common reason for a physician encounter in a child.

This is such an odd example, we literally just went through this with my daughter. After a certain threshold of ear infections, any good pediatrician is going to recommend tubes. We had several and had our daughter's hearing test and she had fluid buildup in her middle ear. Now getting tubes plus about 5 minutes of anesthesia is going to cost us around $1500 (haven't gotten the final bill yet) because we haven't hit her deductible and have a "low" deductible plan with our health insurance. The fucking prescription ear drops we were given was going to cost something like $200 without having a particular "coupon" the drug company gives you since there is no generic yet. If all I had to pay for OOP throughout all this was $50 I'd be ecstatic.

Dropout · March 27, 2019

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

This is such an odd example, we literally just went through this with my daughter. After a certain threshold of ear infections, any good pediatrician is going to recommend tubes. We had several and had our daughter's hearing test and she had fluid buildup in her middle ear. Now getting tubes plus about 5 minutes of anesthesia is going to cost us around $1500 (haven't gotten the final bill yet) because we haven't hit her deductible and have a "low" deductible plan with our health insurance. The fucking prescription ear drops we were given was going to cost something like $200 without having a particular "coupon" the drug company gives you since there is no generic yet. If all I had to pay for OOP throughout all this was $50 I'd be ecstatic.

You’re scaring me. We have had the tube discussion w the doc. Idk of a shittier feeling than being helpless to stop the pain/crying from your kid. I suppose that plus worrying about the bill.

Hope your little girl gets better and is doing well.

Anastasis · March 27, 2019

@GSU&UT I am going to respond on the HC policy thread so as to stop derailing the Bern thread.

bad_teammate · March 28, 2019

Re-post that's very instructive as to what is needed.

We must motivate our nation full of non-voters with a bold, progressive agenda that they can champion and stand up for and be excited about.

They are angry, and they SHOULD be angry.

We need to capture that anger and turn it into progress.

Dropout · March 28, 2019

If only we’d have listened to Bernie’s prophecies in the 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s. What could have been.

Fear not children of the world. The time is now. Like Vince floating into the end zone to conquer the greatest of all time. Like Nowitzki in 2011 slaying his past and a king at the same time. Bernie’s story is one of those stories. Only altering the course of a nation. The journey and winding roads of this reality are often stranger than fiction. It all happens in due time.

bad_teammate · March 28, 2019

Hell yes

bad_teammate · March 28, 2019

Eric Alterman and CAP are coming for Bernie, and my body is ready for fucking war.

The Liberal Case Against Bernie

The whole thing is a hilarious self-own, but he shoots himself in the head in the second paragraph.

Quote

enator Bernie Sanders’s presidential candidacy poses a conundrum for progressives. Not since 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt said that he “welcomed” the hatred of corporate interests, has a serious presidential candidate offered so aggressive a challenge to the conservative powers that be. At the same time, however, a dangerous lunatic is president of the United States, and Sanders, of all the major Democratic contenders, is the one who will make Donald Trump’s reelection most likely. Eight years of a Trump presidency could mean the end of meaningful democracy in the United States, along with many of the rights that women, minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and others now take for granted.

Let me clarify: I’ve been a fan and supporter of Sanders ever since he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1981. I was honored to be asked to testify before him in Congress years ago, and I voted for him in the New York presidential primary in 2016. I did so, however, not because I imagined he might win the nomination, but because I hoped that a strong showing by Sanders would help wake up Hillary Clinton to the importance of addressing economic inequality, and also to honor his brave criticism of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR YA!?

This is the centrist brain on full display. Sliced into sections to study like those BODYWORLDS displays.

"I have beliefs, maybe, but I bury them. And when I can't bury them, I only use them in a performative way."

Quote

I was wrong. Sanders turned so negative toward Clinton that it hurt her in the general election. Even though he campaigned for her after he lost the nomination, roughly 12 percent of Sanders’s supporters switched to Trump, and enough of the rest supported Jill Stein’s kamikaze candidacy that it helped tip key states to Trump.

Evidence of Sanders "turning so negative"? Nope. None. Just offered without evidence or backing, assumed to feed the guilt complex because he failed Mother.

Quote

I held some of the same views myself as a young man, but I am not running for president. And if I ever thought I might, I probably wouldn’t have agreed to attend a rally in 1985 in Managua, Nicaragua, with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die,” while the Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega, condemned my country’s “state terrorism” (accurate as the term was).

Sorry, red-baiter, but this just makes Sanders 10x more awesome.

Quote

I mention this appearance because, according to reporting by journalist Kurt Eichenwald, Republicans have it and similar events on tape.

Imagine being scared of Kurt "tentacle porn" Eichenwald.

Quote

A Sanders nomination would, I fear, deliver the country to Trump.

You should be scared, cuck.

Edited March 28, 2019 by bad_teammate

Sign In

Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

Recommended Posts

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hank Scorpio

Johnny Sack

Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TDunk 590

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NowThis 931

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23394

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23394

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23394

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23394

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13132

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23394

Link to comment