| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NMLaker
Starting Rotation
Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 523
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The best risk pool for health insurance is the entire population. Any other system is inefficient and creates the opportunity for rent seeking...
Our system sucks. It is an embarrassment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | Even if Biden had wanted to cut social security, he doesnt now. I'm sure Biden had many different opinions than he does now over the 40 years he had been in politics, and the same can be said for anyone who was alive in the 70s, 80s, 90s etc. We want our politicians to both be forever consistent in their positions while, at the same time, willing to make objective decisions based on the best, most up to date evidence/data. We cant have both yet conveniently act like we can whenever it suits our needs to attack a political opponent. It's the greatest hypocrisy of the electorate. |
I agree with the sentiment, but shouldn't it be at least concerning that he's hardly been right about anything in his career, and takes zero ownership of it? (The architect of Reagan's War on Drugs, as well.) Bernie's obviously an outlier. He's tweaked a few positions, but is generally espousing the same economic populism he was 40 years ago. He'll also admit when he was wrong (his vote in support of the war in Afghanistan). With Biden you won't get any of that introspection, usually just lies and logical equivocations. I don't even know where this theory that he's "evolved" exactly stems from. It seems more like he just went away, and wasn't in a position to do more awful (bleep).
I wasn't the one who brought up this social security thing, btw. I fully realize his supporters do not care in learning anything about his past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Was reading how the US Healthcare system "Administrative" per capita costs are 400% more than Canada's
It's probably higher after reading the replies from Canadians.
| Quote: | | Of course they do. Profit is the primary motivation of the administration of health care in America. Our system in Canada isn’t perfect, but a recent 9 day stay in hospital with pneumonia cost me $29.50 ($Cnd, or about $20 US) because I bought some gourmet chocolates for the nurses. My family monthly premiums to belong to this level service are $139.00, or were because now in BC these have been removed from individuals and funded by employers. Of course another reason why Canada’s system is inferior to the US model. Cheers’ |
| Quote: | | Hey. I live in BC too. Just this past year, I had multiple CT scans as well as two separate cytoscopic examinations by a urologist, as well as additional specialty tests and my only cost was medical supplies. Which my work benefits cover 100%. Submit the receipt and I get paid back a week later. |
I guess the quality of living in these countries that give away healthcare must be horrible? 
9 day stay in an American hospital could bankrupt the average American citizen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Palin
Star Player
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 1808
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Palin wrote: | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-new-york-times-endorsement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
LMAO what the hell is this??? |
Well you knew it wouldn't be Sanders or Biden, who are equally unappealing to their sensibilities for obvious reasons (too liberal; brain worms). I expected it to be Pete, but this is lame for even them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24158
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How dare they endorse two highly qualified sitting US senators? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find it odd that Warren was a republican who is now a progressive and that’s ok (at least until she fired back at Bernie) but Biden can’t evolve over time. You know, the guy who got a republican to switch parties to pass Obamacare...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddiejonze
Star Player
Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7228
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Biden supposedly Lies yet Barry had no problem picking him to be his #2
Can't make this stuff up.
Obama has a 93% favorability rating amongst democrats and people easily associate Joe with Barack.
But, sure- He's a liar
There's no way the Bernie Bro on here is gonna vote for Joe if he's the nominee...
SAD!
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greenfrog wrote: | | Palin wrote: | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-new-york-times-endorsement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
LMAO what the hell is this??? |
Well you knew it wouldn't be Sanders or Biden, who are equally unappealing to their sensibilities for obvious reasons (too liberal; brain worms). I expected it to be Pete, but this is lame for even them. |
Bernie had a real chance with the Times of record until the racism thing, though. You hate to see it, but Bernie's street cred remains intact. No Hüsker Dü sellout nonsense from the Bernmeister. May he live forever and ever. Glory be unto his name. Bernard the first.
_________________
Under New Management
Last edited by Baron Von Humongous on Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
The good news is that Vox's Matt Yglesias, a Replacements fan through and through and a reporter no doubt beloved by the dirtbag left, makes the case for Bernie Sanders as the only path forward for Democrats: vox.com
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kareem (72) is younger than Bernie (78) and Biden (77).
Kareem has also won in Wisconsin.
Should Kareem...?
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Black Mothers Keep Dying After Giving Birth
| Quote: | | What's more, even relatively well-off black women like Shalon Irving die and nearly die at higher rates than whites. Again, New York City offers a startling example: A 2016 analysis of five years of data found that black, college-educated mothers who gave birth in local hospitals were more likely to suffer severe complications of pregnancy or childbirth than white women who never graduated from high school. |
NPR 2017
Reducing income inequality should be a key goal of any Democratic Party candidate, and addressing structural racism via economic policy can have profound effects, but minimizing or eliding the historical sociopolitical (and cultural) foundations of American racism in pursuit of a purely political economic solution is anti-intersectionality and has a higher probability of failing American racial and ethnic minorities if American history is any guide. How does Bernie Sanders propose to address structural racism via policy other than a "rising (socialist) tide will lift all boats?" |
| Quote: | b-boy bouiebaisse
@jbouie
flipping through Origins of the Urban Crisis and wanted to highlight this passage, about the attempt to integrate a which is a great illustration of how, in a racially stratified society, economic security is often understood in racial terms. |
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1219026923013144576
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Palin wrote: | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-new-york-times-endorsement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
LMAO what the hell is this??? |
A hellufa ticket? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | greenfrog wrote: | | Palin wrote: | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-new-york-times-endorsement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
LMAO what the hell is this??? |
Well you knew it wouldn't be Sanders or Biden, who are equally unappealing to their sensibilities for obvious reasons (too liberal; brain worms). I expected it to be Pete, but this is lame for even them. |
Bernie had a real chance with the Times of record until the racism thing, though. You hate to see it, but Bernie's street cred remains intact. No Hüsker Dü sellout nonsense from the Bernmeister. May he live forever and ever. Glory be unto his name. Bernard the first. |
It's funny that Mara Gay, a black woman whose reaction to Sanders' comments about economics and racism went viral among dirtbag centrists and leftists on social media to feed their respective narratives, was the only person among the NYT opinion writers to cast a vote in favor of Senator Sanders.
That's her on the bottom left: https://twitter.com/Psyche1226/status/1218788686751502337
Mara Gay is good now, though, to Sanders fans.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
The discussion about healthcare costs is wonderful and informative, but I'm still stuck on "Obama hollowed out the middle class."
Not Reagon or Clinton or any of the Bushes. But Obama. The guy who inherited the worst American financial crisis since The Depression hollowed out the middle class.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | The discussion about healthcare costs is wonderful and informative, but I'm still stuck on "Obama hollowed out the middle class."
Not Reagon or Clinton or any of the Bushes. But Obama. The guy who inherited the worst American financial crisis since The Depression hollowed out the middle class. |
Imagine the next poor sap that inherits a Republican Presidents economy
1.3 Trillion dollar budget for what? and Democrats signed it too?
Who to trust
How did it get this (bleep) bad? Citizens United didn't cause all this and nobody looked out for a strategy.. Mitch McConnell needed reigned in at all costs long ago.. The Russian monies/ all this (bleep). Zero accountability government
William Barr? How is he a government official..
If a Democrat wins the whole Federal Government will have to be gutted and sanitized.. the whole thing.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die. |
You know what is the perfectly flawed dream politically? That the US government and the associated politicians would be able to come up with an instant M4A that required NO transition and worked for great for everyone. Talk about a nonchalant attitude.
And why, if said new government run health care was so effective, would anyone need to be buying junk plans? They could simply utilize the government's plan. Junk plans wouldn't survive. Meanwhile well run ones that many members of the public find very useful and effective could continue to service them while the government continues to evolve their system. And if anyone is going to honestly evaluate what that evolution is going to be like in this bureaucratic nation, then one has to admit that such a transition is going to fraught with logistical nightmare. Hell, we can't even take care of the health of our own veterans in an effective manner . . . wanna talk about a very real cost to people's lives.
I have yet to see a well thought out argument as to how trying to immediately shift to a government run M4A is going to be successful without any kind of transitional period and why people with quality, effective insurance should have to give something up that for something that at least in the early stages is going to be worse for them. If the government can't find a way to transition people in true need of government assisted health care with forcing the entire population to switch to it, then the idea they are going to be able to instantly shift to system that serves the entire population is beyond a dream, it's a fantasy.
Look, I'm not going to repeat myself. I'd love to see a system were everyone in the country has not only affordable healthcare, but healthcare that is essentially "free" (outside of the taxes it takes to get there). But that's not going to happen in any short period and without all kinds of growing pains. Just like any kind of progressive change, it has to take place over time and with a well thought out transition. That's why we call it "progress".
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die. |
You know what is the perfectly flawed dream politically? That the US government and the associated politicians would be able to come up with an instant M4A that required NO transition and worked for great for everyone. Talk about a nonchalant attitude.
And why, if said new government run health care was so effective, would anyone need to be buying junk plans? They could simply utilize the government's plan. Junk plans wouldn't survive. Meanwhile well run ones that many members of the public find very useful and effective could continue to service them while the government continues to evolve their system. And if anyone is going to honestly evaluate what that evolution is going to be like in this bureaucratic nation, then one has to admit that such a transition is going to fraught with logistical nightmare. Hell, we can't even take care of the health of our own veterans in an effective manner . . . wanna talk about a very real cost to people's lives.
I have yet to see a well thought out argument as to how trying to immediately shift to a government run M4A is going to be successful without any kind of transitional period and why people with quality, effective insurance should have to give something up that at least in the early stages is going to be worse for them. If |
I’ll take a stab at it. Because whenever a program is only used by some people, it becomes easier to take it away. This is the same argument Andrew Yang made for UBI, and that others have made for free public college for anyone who wants it. Remember when Newt Gingrich complained about “Lazy Welfare Queens”? Why didn’t he do something similar about the “Lazy Social Security Queens”? Because when everyone pays into it and gets it, it becomes much harder to take it away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | Palin wrote: | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-new-york-times-endorsement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
LMAO what the hell is this??? |
A hellufa ticket? |
It certainly strikes a balance of ideas and unites two very well qualified and accomplished candidates. But as we can see, that's not what really matters to some people.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: |
I’ll take a stab at it. Because whenever a program is only used by some people, it becomes easier to take it away. This is the same argument Andrew Yang made for UBI, and that others have made for free public college for anyone who wants it. Remember when Newt Gingrich complained about “Lazy Welfare Queens”? Why didn’t he do something similar about the “Lazy Social Security Queens”? Because when everyone pays into it and gets it, it becomes much harder to take it away. |
Thank you. I have been meaning to mention that the problem with a government run program is that it is at the whims of said government. It can be taken away or damagingly altered no matter HOW many people are using it. One rouge administration with the appropriate control of the House and/or Senate could easily roll back or otherwise alter such a plan for their personal political gain. Don't think so? Then you haven't been paying attention lately.
And you think that just because everyone is using something that means they are all going to place their voting self-interests in maintaining it ahead of their political desires? Again, I'd point out what is going on this country with Republicans and Trump supporters in particular.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29278
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die. |
You know what is the perfectly flawed dream politically? That the US government and the associated politicians would be able to come up with an instant M4A that required NO transition and worked for great for everyone. Talk about a nonchalant attitude.
And why, if said new government run health care was so effective, would anyone need to be buying junk plans? They could simply utilize the government's plan. Junk plans wouldn't survive. Meanwhile well run ones that many members of the public find very useful and effective could continue to service them while the government continues to evolve their system. And if anyone is going to honestly evaluate what that evolution is going to be like in this bureaucratic nation, then one has to admit that such a transition is going to fraught with logistical nightmare. Hell, we can't even take care of the health of our own veterans in an effective manner . . . wanna talk about a very real cost to people's lives.
I have yet to see a well thought out argument as to how trying to immediately shift to a government run M4A is going to be successful without any kind of transitional period and why people with quality, effective insurance should have to give something up that at least in the early stages is going to be worse for them. If |
I’ll take a stab at it. Because whenever a program is only used by some people, it becomes easier to take it away. This is the same argument Andrew Yang made for UBI, and that others have made for free public college for anyone who wants it. Remember when Newt Gingrich complained about “Lazy Welfare Queens”? Why didn’t he do something similar about the “Lazy Social Security Queens”? Because when everyone pays into it and gets it, it becomes much harder to take it away. |
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/20/critics-say-junk-plans-are-being-pushed-aca-exchanges/
| Quote: | Critics say ‘junk plans’ are being pushed on ACA exchanges
The Trump administration has encouraged consumers to use private brokers, who often make more money if they sell the less robust plans. |
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die. |
I think you have it backward. Trying to go from a for profit to a m4a plan overnight would be the most likely chaos situation. There's a ton of infrastructure to set up and a ton to tear down. And that's not even getting into the fact that he best models in the world have public/private components and the devil is always in the details.
You're not going to have junk plans if you outlaw them (that was part of what angered a bunch of people with Obamacare, ironically, because their premiums went "up" because they could no longer buy cheap plans that were basically junk)
The public option is how you ramp into single payer. There's always going to be a transition. One that works is best.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29278
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die. |
I think you have it backward. Trying to go from a for profit to a m4a plan overnight would be the most likely chaos situation. There's a ton of infrastructure to set up and a ton to tear down. And that's not even getting into the fact that he best models in the world have public/private components and the devil is always in the details.
You're not going to have junk plans if you outlaw them (that was part of what angered a bunch of people with Obamacare, ironically, because their premiums went "up" because they could no longer buy cheap plans that were basically junk)
The public option is how you ramp into single payer. There's always going to be a transition. One that works is best. |
I guess I just don't have confidence there would be a linear progression from public option to single payer. Some might argue, if the progression doesn't occur naturally, it means the private insurance is superior. But that couldn't be further from the truth. A public option could be sabotaged the same way Trump has hurt the ACA since coming into office. The same way Republicans have run government programs poorly on purpose to prove "big government" sucks since ... I've been alive. Not to mention the millions of dollars from private insurance and pharmaceutical companies fighting it every step of the way.
With everyone having skin in the game (single payer). I think it's a a more promising starting point if the goal is to make a good system that works.
Whether you're talking about people's lives, people's pocket books, or the ever rising costs our country is accumulating related to healthcare. It's tough to convince me it's a good idea to drag our feet.
A worry of a difficult transition period isn't a good enough excuse IMO. Sounds like being penny rich and pound foolish.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52652
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | I guess I just don't have confidence there would be a linear progression from public option to single payer. |
But you do have confidence that the Feds are just going to immediately be able to dismantle the current system and just install single payer with no problems . . . really . . . ?
| Quote: | | A worry of a difficult transition period isn't a good enough excuse IMO |
But that's exactly what you are doing in the first quote.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
