|
For my fourth post in a row: Heritage Action (one of the far-right think tanks, Freedom Caucus-type) has announced they are still "key voting" against this bill: https://twitter.com/Heritage_Action/status/844205004114333700/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw What that means is when they score every member of congress, if you voted yes, they ding you, if you voted no, they approve - this is how legislators get that "100%" ratings from groups. On the other hand, a big anti-abortion group is key voting for the bill, so there's pressure on both sides.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:What that means is when they score every member of congress, if you voted yes, they ding you, if you voted no, they approve - this is how legislators get that "100%" ratings from groups. On the other hand, a big anti-abortion group is key voting for the bill, so there's pressure on both sides. Blood for the blood god
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't really believe there's any way to pass major health reform without either losers or (more likely) people who fear they will be losers, and it's very difficult to get the benefits to people before the next election. Its not like it was unexpected that the delay in the law's effectiveness until 2014 was going to be a problem - the bill was revised to push as many benefits (children on their parent's plan, for example) as early as possible. And even then we all remember the healthcare.gov issues. You just can't reform 20% of our economy on a dime: even if you can wave a magic wand and get your preferred bill through congress you can't implement it immediately without more magic. So there's always going to be a time between when the bill passes (creating, at a minimum, the people who fear they will be losers under the new system) but the benefits aren't really real. Hell, people are really only waking up to how important the benefits are to them now that they're at risk. This is a great post. I'll note that Medicare/Medicaid is already administratively handled by the private sector so there really isn't much of an impact to scaling up in that regard. In fact, as I noted earlier UnitedHealth Group's UnitedHealth Care division is already laser focused on the Medicare/Medicaid market. Also, it doesn't matter whether we're paying by private insurers or by the federal government, the system is unsustainable regardless of the payer until we can figure out how to contain costs. A lot of people just kind of assume that UHC will be so efficient in execution that the savings more than make-up for the rising costs, but that' based on either a) nothing at all, or b) really hosed up assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Boon posted:It's a valid concern. CO taxpayers effectively subsidize everyone living within X miles of the border where X = someone's willingness to travel for cheap/free healthcare. How so? The plan was supposed to be a system of insurance for CO residents only. Hospitals would still charge out-of-staters
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
esquilax posted:How so? The plan was supposed to be a system of insurance for CO residents only. Hospitals would still charge out-of-staters Ah my mistake then. I'd have more questions but it's clear I need to read up on it (though I won't because it's kind of a moot point).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Man, I wonder how things would have been different for the ACA if they had managed to get the public option through. Feel like it would have been a much, much bigger step towards reasonable healthcare if that hadn't been cut from the bill. Wouldn't magically solve all its problems or anything but.... fuckin' Lieberman
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Boon posted:It's a valid concern. CO taxpayers effectively subsidize everyone living within X miles of the border where X = someone's willingness to travel for cheap/free healthcare. ColoradoCare had a residency requirement though. It failed to pass because people balked at the substantial tax increases, even though it was projected to save most people money by replacing private insurance premiums with a payroll tax. Unfortunately I think the projection was way too generous in favor of ColoradoCare; it was assumed to reduce health care costs by allowing health care providers to reduce the number of administrators who deal with private insurers. Unfortunately, moving a single state to UHC doesn't really give you that benefit. You still need to deal with private insurers when you have people traveling in your state and ColoradoCare covered residents seeking health services outside of Colorado which also has administrative overhead. In addition, the cost savings projection also included stuff like eliminating fraud and unnecessary medical services. These problems aren't unique to private insurance! Realistically ColoradoCare was too limited in scope to address the real problem behind this, which is that healthcare costs are rapidly rising in comparison to wages and it will get even worse as the boomers age. e: beaten, but even if Paul Ryan gets his libertarian dream healthcare market, rising costs are eventually going to start forcing even the upper middle-class out. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't really believe there's any way to pass major health reform without either losers or (more likely) people who fear they will be losers, and it's very difficult to get the benefits to people before the next election. Its not like it was unexpected that the delay in the law's effectiveness until 2014 was going to be a problem - the bill was revised to push as many benefits (children on their parent's plan, for example) as early as possible. And even then we all remember the healthcare.gov issues. You just can't reform 20% of our economy on a dime: even if you can wave a magic wand and get your preferred bill through congress you can't implement it immediately without more magic. So there's always going to be a time between when the bill passes (creating, at a minimum, the people who fear they will be losers under the new system) but the benefits aren't really real. Hell, people are really only waking up to how important the benefits are to them now that they're at risk. Agree completely. An even worse curveball that most haven't considered yet (since we're nowhere near getting a majority on board with universal healthcare): a lot of the inefficiencies in our current healthcare system are jobs. Sure there are a lot of corporate profits and waste, but there's a lot of jobs in our current system that likely wouldn't be there in a simplified Medicare for All system. Navigating the mess of public and private insurers and their obscure billing/eligibility rules requires a lot of benefit coordinators, accounting divisions, programmers etc. I'm not in favor of busywork entirely for its own sake, but eventually we do need to acknowledge that bringing down costs in our healthcare system to bring them in line with other nations will mean a lot of those administrative jobs lost. Tie that in with increasing automation in the economy, American's unhealthy obsession of viewing their self-worth in context of the demanding jobs they preform, and the depressing popularity of "welfare shouldn't go to the lazy able but unemployed" rhetoric that is spat out by the GOP to their willing base and the future looks really loving dark. We're a society that finds purpose of life in employment, but it's hard to see a future without decreased need for low to mid level workers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah I think any state-based UHC will need to be residents-only (at least at the beginning), which requires a private system to still stay in effect. Medicaid already does this so it's not exactly rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
More potential hints at who is or isn't up for grabs:quote:The Club for Growth is encouraged by changes in the bill that have been proposed by the Trump Administration, but House leadership has not gone far enough with those changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't really believe there's any way to pass major health reform without either losers or (more likely) people who fear they will be losers, and it's very difficult to get the benefits to people before the next election. Its not like it was unexpected that the delay in the law's effectiveness until 2014 was going to be a problem - the bill was revised to push as many benefits (children on their parent's plan, for example) as early as possible. And even then we all remember the healthcare.gov issues. You just can't reform 20% of our economy on a dime: even if you can wave a magic wand and get your preferred bill through congress you can't implement it immediately without more magic. So there's always going to be a time between when the bill passes (creating, at a minimum, the people who fear they will be losers under the new system) but the benefits aren't really real. Hell, people are really only waking up to how important the benefits are to them now that they're at risk. Yes. And the Democrats chose for the losers to be the average voter, and the winners to be health insurance companies. This was not an unforeseeable consequence. This was a decision, actively made, under the assumption that under a sufficient PR blitz the average voter would be more tractable than the health insurance lobby. Whoops. quote:And that was an "incremental" change rather than the sort of massive UHC change. Like, even if we just go to medicare for all, that is a lot of additional work. You have to build out all the systems to handle new people, transition people from their old insurance to medicare, get the doctors who previously weren't doing medicare doing it, wind down insurance companies, deal with the sure and certain republican sabotage and delay, etc. Paradoxically, incremental changes often require significantly more to make functional than sweeping changes. Being careful to make sure every established player doesn't have to change too much puts a tremendous amount of financial and tactical overhead on a project. The question is whether the costs of preserving extant inefficiencies will outweigh the new inefficiencies, and that is a question Obamacare was very carefully designed to avoid answering. quote:So at the end of the day if you want to do heath care you can't rely on "do good things for people and you will be rewarded". Maybe Obamacare could have been sold better - but I question if any messaging that needs to explain a new system to people can ever beat fearmongering based on fear of the unknown. It's always going to be simpler to attack any heath care plan than to support it. And at the end of the day, even if we go back to the pre-Obamacare disaster of 50 million uninsured, that's still a minority of the population. Even if you double that to assume 100 million people have health care that is nonexistent or is - in their own minds - effectively nonexistent so they will support any improved plan, you've still got the 200 million people who have a level of health care they are afraid to lose. So you've always, always, got the problem of the "middle class" who would be better off under UHC done right, but are afraid that their workable insurance will be replaced by UHC done wrong. You can, in fact. And indeed must. Obamacare was wholly reliant on doing good things for the health insurance lobby being rewarded by them having the system's back going forward, a bet that its architects lost both publicly and hilariously in the case of Aetna, but that looks to be being rewarded right now, as the health insurance lobby makes its displeasure with this new bill known. You're right when you say there will always be a great deal of fear of the unknown. Quite a bit will turn out to be justified. The calculus is how many people you can rely on having your back thanks to the new changes, and if you can expect to balance them out. quote:The only real solutions I see to those problems are (a) incrementalism: create a parallel public alternative (expanded medicare/medicaid, public option) and let people transition to it slowly as they become comfortable with it or (b) wait for the reaganites to die out and younger generations who don't share the assumption that the government fucks things up take power and reverse the cultural assumption government fucks stuff up Republicans have managed to instill. Neither are quick options. And as we're seeing now, you have to keep power after you implement the changes long enough to make them stick: you can't just get power, ram them through, then lose power because then it's all for naught. B is a non-starter, as we both well know; it is astonishing how quickly anyone's definition of 'attainable change' twists into 'profits me, personally.' You will never lack for Reagans. As for A, I don't disagree that your definition of incrementalism is correct. i would only challenge it to increase the increments in question. There is no way to improve the American health care system that does not involve pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies losing, and losing big. The sooner plans that try to mollify entities whose structural interests are reliant on the system remaining broken are a thing of the past, the better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
General Comment: Agitation for UHC should be mainstream Democratic political culture. This would help a lot.
Accretionist fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
How bad is the GOP's health care plan, you ask? It is literally worse than no plan at all:quote:The Congressional Budget Office recently said that around 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2026 under the Republican repeal plan than if the current law stayed in place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:And as we're seeing now, you have to keep power after you implement the changes long enough to make them stick: you can't just get power, ram them through, then lose power because then it's all for naught. I agree with this, but I think it's important for Democratic politicians to realize that if they want to take power and retain it, they're going to have to at least put on a show of fighting for this agenda. It's one thing to say, "Oh, well, those are nice ideas, but we can't fight for them too hard because we have to be pragmatic and win elections," when the base of your party's voters aren't energized by those ideas. But these aren't the 90's or early 2000's anymore. The playbook has changed. Most of the Democratic coalition really, really wants these changes (edit: indeed, most Americans in general do); it's their leaders who need to catch up, if they want a chance of winning back any branch of government at all. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
I don't think the argument for ACA was helped in 2012 when half of the party ran away from defending the legislation and then promptly lost their seats anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Boon posted:I don't think the argument for ACA was helped in 2012 when half of the party ran away from defending the legislation and then promptly lost their seats anyway. Indeed; voters don't tend to reward cowardice that unmistakably brazen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
in late january, CMS posted is first annual report on maryland's hospital all-payer implementation linking it here in case it's of interest to anyone and hasn't yet been linked in this thread summary background is here
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I'm going to cut to the chase here because the point we are going to reach is that the people who support UHH voted yes, but the amendment failed because people were concerned dirty, poor (New) Mexicans were going to flood the state and steal our sweet, sweet healthcare. Again that doesn't suggest a whole lot of wide spread support for progressivism even among likely democratic voters. They're not dirty or even particularly poor, you loving idiot racist, but allowing people who've been abandoned by the US and other states to move to CO to have everything treated solely at CO expense doesn't make sense. There's a concept called insurance you may want to look up, particularly why the individual mandate was a part of Obamacare. Only national level UHC makes sense - if you don't agree, point to another country where some regions are UHC and others aren't. esquilax posted:How so? The plan was supposed to be a system of insurance for CO residents only. Hospitals would still charge out-of-staters Because there are people that we currently literally let die in gutters who would, I'm *guessing*, probably try to scrape together a few bucks to get a permanent CO address if it were a matter of life and death. call to action fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:If you have any content to contribute about how we can convince people to risk the coverage they currently enjoy and enact Single Payer or about ways to move towards UHC under the ACA, I'm all ears. Just as a random note that applies to this sort of thing, but "not enough people want to do X thing" is not a rebuttal to "I think it would be good to do X thing." For a somewhat exaggerated analogy (though honestly I'm not sure if it's really that exaggerated), it's like if you kept telling abolitionists in 1820 that they were wrong to continue advocating for the end of the slavery because not enough people supported it and X% of the economy was connected with the slavery industry. It's the job of politicians and advocacy organizations/think tanks to tackle the issues of getting policy written and passed. A citizen only has the responsibility to express their views of what they want. It's obviously impossible to ever get a majority in support of something if there isn't first a minority who is willing to express their support. If every single citizen was a ~serious person~ who was only willing to support things that were currently politically viable, literally nothing would ever get done because you'd basically have a giant political game of chicken where no one is willing to advocate for anything until it has enough support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
call to action posted:They're not dirty or even particularly poor, you loving idiot racist, but allowing people who've been abandoned by the US and other states to move to CO to have everything treated solely at CO expense doesn't make sense. There's a concept called insurance you may want to look up, particularly why the individual mandate was a part of Obamacare. Only national level UHC makes sense - if you don't agree, point to another country where some regions are UHC and others aren't. People who are dying in the gutters can already scrape together a few bucks to move to any state that offers them medicaid. If they aren't poor, then they can purchase private insurance coverage. This isn't a problem that is caused by Coloradocare, which is literally just another health insurance plan esquilax fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844282098575966208 https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844282420472037376 ...parsing that, it's gonna be very close either way. "at least 20-25 hard 'no' votes" means they aren't certain they've got enough votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
esquilax posted:People who are dying in the gutters can already scrape together a few bucks to move to any state that offers them medicaid. If they aren't poor, then they can purchase private insurance coverage. This isn't a problem that is caused by Coloradocare, which is literally just another health insurance plan So are you aware who pays for the majority of Medicaid, versus who would pay for the majority of ColoradoCare? Because someone moving to take advantage of federal programs is different from someone moving to take advantage of state programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:So are you aware who pays for the majority of Medicaid, versus who would pay for the majority of ColoradoCare? Because someone moving to take advantage of federal programs is different from someone moving to take advantage of state programs. Not from the perspective of the individual who would be moving, all they see is dollars from state A and no dollars from state B. Do we see a large number of people moving between states to take advantage of the medicaid discrepancy? Doesn't seem like your projections line up with reality
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Haven't been keeping up with the vote counts. Even if AHCA passes the house, do republicans have 50 in the senate? Or is the hope to just get it through the house and use the reconciliation committee to buy out the republican votes in the senate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Haven't been keeping up with the vote counts. Even if AHCA passes the house, do republicans have 50 in the senate? Nah. Ryan's praying he can cockslap enough Reps into squeezing it out because he doesn't want to be solely responsible once it's dead in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
call to action posted:They're not dirty or even particularly poor, you loving idiot racist quote:There's a concept called insurance you may want to look up, particularly why the individual mandate was a part of Obamacare. Only national level UHC makes sense - if you don't agree, point to another country where some regions are UHC and others aren't. This is a measure, that I don't think anybody bothered to do any comprehensive polling on, but judging by the numbers probably failed by double digits among Bennet/Clinton voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:https://twitter.com/costareports/status/844282098575966208 The Yes whip count is going to be very soft. It is easy to support leadership in voting for a bad bill when you don't think it will pass. It is another thing when it looks like it is going to pass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
RE: ColoradoCare I was at the county level caucus for Jefferson County. A person suggested adding support for Amendment 69 (ColoradoCare) to the Democratic Party platform. Sen. Bennet and Congressman Perlmutter got up on stage and told us they weren't for it due to the 3 person panel in each Congressional district being able to determine coverages possibly screwing us later on by not covering stuff. Or something. Democratic Governor Hickenlooper was against it. In the end, the "NAYS" way out screamed the "YEAS" at the caucus...an event filled with Democrats and probably 2/3 Bernie supporters. I voted yes on it. But I sort of get why people didn't. For one, while Colorado looks very liberal on the outside, it's actually more libertarian. We voted yes for marijuana because toking it doesn't harm anyone else, and people shouldn't be stuck in jail for it. That, and it was a way to get tax money without raising income or property taxes on a lot of the population. Which brings us to TABOR. Basically, the government can't raise any taxes without going to the people, and can't increase the amount they collect over a small percentage each year. IF the taxes collected for ColoradoCare turned out not to be adequate, they'd have to go back to the voters to ask for more money. Getting a statewide tax increase passed here requires an act of God, so there's a drat good chance coverage would get cut instead. On top of that, over the past 5-6 years or so, housing prices have increased like crazy in the Denver/Boulder/Fort Collins area, where most of the people are. The $524 a month glorified ashtray tissue box apartment I had in 2007 now costs $1000 a month. The average 1 bedroom is $1300 a month. A 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 1000 square foot meth house in a nothing-special neighborhood costs 250K. Wages are not growing fast enough to keep up with the cost of living rise. Colorado is an insular, somewhat anti-growth state anyway, and we're already overwhelmed by the deluge of Millenials coming here from elsewhere looking for Tech Jobs, High Times, and endless snowboarding. Adding a bunch of sick, low-earning power people who are screwed out of health care in Texas and Kansas isn't exactly in our best interests. But I still felt that ethically it was the right thing to do, so I voted yes. I support universal, nationwide health care. I'm open to discussion about different ways of doing it, as long as it gets done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
blackmet posted:
The only feasible path is universal Medicare/ Medicaid, and even that is a colossal stretch that requires a Democratic leftist wave election as a sine qua non.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
What if you pass universal single payer unicorn healthcare, and then poor mexicans come over and use it? This won't work unless you make it available globally, IMO.
mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The only feasible path is universal Medicare/ Medicaid, and even that is a colossal stretch that requires a Democratic leftist wave election as a sine qua non. How about open enrollment into Medicare/Medicaid? It's the best incremental approach. I make too much to qualify but would happily pay 100-200/mo to enroll. I know how much employer sponsored health care is. It's insane. I also know most doctors don't take it. I'm OK with it. It would be a huge boon to small businesses that want to provide but cant. The Randoids can continue hating everyone. The rest of us would love to put into the support. I'd run a small labor hall if I could provide my guys Medicare level service at reasonable rates. There's a huge subset of the labor force in the gig economy barely making it that having a fall back that isn't some selfish insurance company would make alot of sense. BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Xae posted:The Yes whip count is going to be very soft. It is easy to support leadership in voting for a bad bill when you don't think it will pass. It is another thing when it looks like it is going to pass. I would suspect there's a lot of people who have the opposite view, actually: if its going to pass they'll sign on, but they don't want to take a damaging vote if it's not going anywhere. I think that's why both Ryan and the Freedom Caucus are posturing so hard about having the votes, to keep the leaners on their side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:in late january, CMS posted is first annual report on maryland's hospital all-payer implementation Thank you for posting this! It's a bit early, to me, to categorize the impacts found (-1.08% reduction in medicare per capita hospital cost vs 1.07% increase nationwide) as much more than noise but I especially appreciate the use of the waiver process to force hospitals into measuring against metrics that are more beneficial to the general population than what they'd been using since the 70s. Look forward to reading more through it. Ytlaya posted:Just as a random note that applies to this sort of thing, but "not enough people want to do X thing" is not a rebuttal to "I think it would be good to do X thing." I get where you're coming from and generally agree with you, but "not enough people want to do X thing" is a pretty healthy rebuttal to "Y thing was bad and the only course of action is to do X". I don't mind the exaggeration (and yes, comparing insufficient healthcare with the literal rape, murder, torture, and dehumanization of slavery is that exaggerated) of your analogy, the bigger problem to me is abolitionists were arguing on a binary level while healthcare exists on more of a spectrum. To torture the analogy a bit further, given the context of the conversation, it's an intra-abolitionist disagreement on if there's merit to trying to free slaves in a given state or if anything that fails to emancipate the entire nation immediately is a failure and hurts the cause. A less inflammatory analogy might be telling people who Fight for 15 to shut the gently caress up because all they're doing is propping up the capitalist system and the only solution worth working on is UBI. Everyone should feel fine to advocate for whatever they'd like. With that said, if people insist on demonizing or making GBS threads on the work others are doing (or proposing) to accomplish similar objectives it changes the conversation a bit. When meaningful structural impediments are pointed out, I expect those making GBS threads on the solutions of others to grapple with them. Assuming spherical elephants in a frictionless vacuum, I'd love Single Payer. Contra the poster I was quoting, spinelessness and corruption of the Dems don't rank on the list of reasons why it's not currently feasible and "accept the reality of the situation" doesn't strike me as an unreasonable barrier to entry in a conversation if you're already making GBS threads on the participants. blackmet posted:RE: ColoradoCare I appreciate the local detail! My point in bringing up the landslide against CC in this election was as a demonstration that even in a blue state (and yes, weed+Hillary+DemSenator+minimum wage increase is Blue), Democrats abstained or voted against it en masse. I think UHC is a moral imperative and I'm open to nearly any way of achieving it, including and especially Singe Payer if it were feasible. Working within a framework that has successfully expanded coverage and saved lives to accomplish UHC and help reduce the structural barrier to Single Payer seems to me like the best way to do so. It is amazing how the tables of turned on Healthcare-If you'd told me after the Tea Party takeover in 2010 that "Vote for me, I'll save (restore?) Obamacare" looks like a winning message for 2018, I'd have been more skeptical about that than President Trump. If Obamacare survives the next 3 years, nobody should survive Super Tuesday without having a specific and scored plan for expanding the ACA (or a single payer replacement that can be evaluated on its merits... the last 3 months have demonstrated what goes wrong with "elect us and find out!"). As a progressive, I'll be beyond excited if "re-expand Medicaid and reestablish risk corridors to encourage exchange reentry" is the centrist Dem position in 2020 given the teeth we had to pull to get even something as relatively milquetoast as the ACA through 8 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:How about open enrollment into Medicare/Medicaid? Hell yes. I work as a research postdoc at a university, I make $45k and my family health plan is $600 a month through the employer (bronze level, the most basic plan offered). Under Obamacare, I qualify for expanded Medicaid (under 200% of poverty line in NY state) and pay $20 a month for me, $9 a month for each of my two kids. I'll pay whatever anybody wants to get out from underneath employer-based plans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
blackmet posted:RE: ColoradoCare I appreciate your post and your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious why you believe there is an ethical imperative to provide universal, nationwide health care if you also believe that the sick or low-earning power poor are a net drain on our social institutions. Also is stricter border control and security a necessary precondition to universal, nationwide health care?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:How about open enrollment into Medicare/Medicaid? Functional ly the same thing. Private market would be run out of business by the structural advantages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
The most feasible approach seems like Medicare-for-All baseline with for-profit supplemental coverage and co-insurance through exchanges. Jump straight into paring down the health insurance industry to something a little smaller and more stable but still amply profitable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Is this somewhat near DOA? Sounds like it will be close in the House, but I thought that was going to be the easy one to get through!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Robert Costa, who usually has good sources in Republican leadership, says there's currently more than 24 hard nos:quote:President Trump spent Tuesday selling the Republican health-care overhaul to skeptical House members, warning his party that failure would endanger his legislative agenda and their own political careers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
If the bill goes down in the House (either by being postponed or actually losing the vote), will they try and write a new one and pass that or just drop it and say "lol we tried"? If it goes down in the Senate I would love to see what kind of hideous bill comes out of conference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:12
|
|
