|
Ze Pollack posted:You support a political party which you gladly accept is unwilling at best and incapable at worst of representing its constituents. Your implication is that your mythical constituents understand the difficulty of shifting 1/6 of the economy and impacting 325 million people. They don't.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Yeah. My husband and I are self-employed. Before ACA there was precisely one insurance provider who would insure a person for less than a ridiculous amount. Now we have some choice, and for the most part, it's better. This is a very fair comment (and likely would have also been happening with no ACA) and Obama has repeated himself his own namesake will need continued work. If the GOP comes up with a Bill that looks to make changes I'd be interested in their ideas. Costs need to be looked at. But I'm not seeing that right now, it's mostly an attempt to go back to Pre-2009 the closest they can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Because the realities of cost are this: Americans want expensive things and good health but are unwilling to pay for them or change their ways. Ze Pollack for instance wants UHC, but has no earthly idea what that would mean for taxes (hint: there'd be huge increases without huge offsetting spending cuts)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Tom Price was just in a hearing on Capitol Hill. He came outright and said: - HHS will not spend any money advertising Obamacare Open Enrollments going forward. ("We aren’t going to continue spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars promoting a failed government program.") - HHS is cutting the funds to states to help them advertise and enroll new people. - The IRS is unlikely to enforce the individual mandate penalty (they already barely do, but having the director say that they won't will encourage more people to go without it) - When asked about enforcing Essential Health Benefit Requirements, he said that they are the law, but they aren't going to go out of their way to check every single plan. They will look into them if someone files a complaint for a non-compliant plan. They will follow the law, though. He thinks people probably won't complain because premiums would be lower and "Individuals ought to be able to select the kind of coverage they want, not that the government forces them to buy." Basically, giving a green light to companies and individuals to not follow the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Boon posted:Because the realities of cost are this: Americans want expensive things and good health but are unwilling to pay for them or change their ways. It is your classic hard vs soft support. It is easy to get support for vague concepts. This is called "soft" support. Because the support crumbles when you try to get a policy in place. Hard support is support that persists from the concept stage to the policy stage. You'll get 95% support for reducing the crime rate. But try and find any specific crime policy that has near that level of support. UHC is the same way. It polls really well when it is vague. It polls really poorly when you start looking at potential policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Boon posted:Your implication is that your mythical constituents understand the difficulty of shifting 1/6 of the economy and impacting 325 million people. They don't. Sure! And some people voted for Hillary Clinton because they thought she'd declare war on Russia. Does their stupidity mean electing Hillary Clinton is a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Sure! And some people voted for Hillary Clinton because they thought she'd declare war on Russia. Does their stupidity mean electing Hillary Clinton is a bad idea? At this point, the only response your posts deserve are  Xae posted:It is your classic hard vs soft support. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Boon posted:Because the realities of cost are this: Americans want expensive things and good health but are unwilling to pay for them or change their ways. We need huge tax increases on the very wealthy anyway just for economic fairness and to prevent wealth stratification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Boon posted:Your implication is that your mythical constituents understand the difficulty of shifting 1/6 of the economy and impacting 325 million people. They don't. Well, but candidates promising awesome-sounding platitudes is not really anything new. The fact that Obama promised big things for health care, then lost support once he got elected and had to govern, doesn't change the fact that promising big things got him elected in the first place. The ACA remains the law of the land, and most Americans are better-off now because of it than they were before. I don't see why this has to be any different with economically progressive Dems going forward: they promise Medicare for all, they get elected partially on that promise (because people broadly support the idea), they try to implement it, they make a good show of fighting for it, and if they can't succeed, they at least try to come up with something that improves upon the existing system. The public isn't automatically going to throw them out of power if they don't succeed; they WILL throw them out of power if they don't look like they're fighting for their constituencies, though. So I don't understand this argument that the Democrats can't make big promises with regard to health care, lest they suffer from it politically. People vote candidates with pie-in-the-sky overpromising into power all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Sure! And some people voted for Hillary Clinton because they thought she'd declare war on Russia. Does their stupidity mean electing Hillary Clinton is a bad idea? I never heard of anyone who did this, but plenty of people who voted Trump because they were afraid Hillary would declare war on Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Xae posted:
I'd posit unleaded gasoline, due to the crime reduction effects of reduced environmental lead levels. There are a few nutjobs out there who want a return to leaded gasoline, sure, but i'd guess it's an 80/20 if not a 95/5 . To address the substance though, it's mostly a matter of framing, and past that it's a matter of choosing the right policy goals and methods. Fund a Medicaid expansion by taxing the 1%, that's a much easier sell than funding it by cutting Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Xae posted:It polls really poorly when you start looking at potential policies. Some poll well. Public option buy-ins are the best. Here's a poll of likely 2016 voters from from Jan. 9 - 15, 2016. quote:MEDICARE BUY-IN FOR ALL Edit: Majorian posted:So I don't understand this argument that the Democrats can't make big promises with regard to health care, lest they suffer from it politically. People vote candidates with pie-in-the-sky overpromising into power all the time. They oppose UHC and the party's left is their enemy. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Boon posted:Because the realities of cost are this: Americans want expensive things and good health but are unwilling to pay for them or change their ways. ...what a curious statement to make. Of course I would like UHC, and of course I am well aware of the fact implementing in one stroke from the current system would result in a tremendous tax increase! To say nothing of the total collapse of the American private health insurance industry overnight, good god, the spike in unemployment alone would make the incoming self-driving-truckpocalypse look like a regular round of layoffs. The public option is the simplest way to move towards that from here. Unfortunately, as Xae can attest, the idea of a public option is already something that makes any health insurance exec's blood run cold in primal terror, as they (quite rightly!) see one being launched as the end of their industry as it currently stands. The trick is to move the Overton window far enough that the slow death of public option is an acceptable compromise for them versus the very quick and extremely painful death of UHC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The public option is the simplest way to move towards that from here. Unfortunately, as Xae can attest, the idea of a public option is already something that makes any health insurance exec's blood run cold in primal terror, as they (quite rightly!) see one being launched as the end of their industry as it currently stands. Not really. Medicare/Medicaid is already primarily administered by private insurers in partnership with CMS. It represents the main strategic thrust for UHG (the world's largest health insurer) Boon fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I never heard of anyone who did this, but plenty of people who voted Trump because they were afraid Hillary would declare war on Russia. Yup. Their opposite numbers were far fewer, and utterly deluded, but they did exist. Support of a good thing being ill-informed is not a disqualification for the good thing, to my mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:- The IRS is unlikely to enforce the individual mandate penalty (they already barely do, but having the director say that they won't will encourage more people to go without it) This is very bad. The cost of premiums will only rise faster if healthy people are not on the mandate. Having the law and lax enforcement is better than no law at all, but this is a pretty crucial part of keeping pre-existing condition support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Boon posted:Not really. Medicare/Medicaid is already primarily administered by private insurers in partnership with CMS. It represents the main strategic thrust for UHG (the world's largest health insurer) Yes. The health insurance industry is entirely accepting of being forced to compete with an entity with no profit motive, a far larger datapool to base its rates on, and the ability to mandate pharmaceutical prices in what is, at the moment, the definition of a captive market. Your political awareness started during the Bush years. This is understandable. Do yourself a favor. Look up the history of Hillarycare. The short form of which, I regret to inform you, reads as follows:
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Some poll well. Public option buy-ins are the best. Those are still vague. Will their Medicare be subsidized like current members? If so are people willing to pay more taxes for it? If they aren't subsidized are people still interested in giving a public option that is ~1000+ per person per month? The more specific you get the more support with drop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Xae posted:If they aren't subsidized are people still interested in giving a public option that is ~1000+ per person per month? For me? Hell yes. That's what health insurance costs in the United States and I'd rather pay into the Medicare pool than individually navigate the hell that is private insurers. That's what gold ACA plans cost anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Xae posted:Those are still vague. They should put something together and find out. Unless you're willing to fight and take risks, the only pragmatic realistic policy is Full Oligarchy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Lockback posted:This is very bad. The cost of premiums will only rise faster if healthy people are not on the mandate. Having the law and lax enforcement is better than no law at all, but this is a pretty crucial part of keeping pre-existing condition support. I know right, it's like the current administration is trying to sabotage healthcare or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tom Price was just in a hearing on Capitol Hill. Man, that's depressing. "obamacare isnt failing hard enough, lets see what we can do about that" Going to be interesting to see which party is viewed as owning health insurance, in 3 years
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Xae posted:Those are still vague. Why does one need to get more specific during a campaign?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
This is the dumbest strategy. Voters may not pay much attention but they tend to blame who's in charge for their problems, justified or not. Intentionally making poo poo worse is going to backfire with both the crowd that pays attention and the crowd that doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why does one need to get more specific during a campaign? Also everyone is for UHC exactly until they realize how expensive it is, and that taxes would be increased to fund it. Then it fails to pass 20-80.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:One doesn't, as just demonstrated by Trump. Also demonstrated by Trump is just how hosed one can get when there's no specific plan for doing what was promised. Yet that's not how it turned out for the ACA. Sure, it was unpopular for a while, but it passed, it became unpopular for a while, and then when it started working and Republican plans to repeal it failed, it got popular again. The Democrats lost in 2010 and 2014 not because of the ACA, but because they had no unified strategy, and they ran away from a still-popular president. I don't see why left-Dems can't have a specific plan, but they keep light on the details during the campaign. People won't necessarily oppose the program when they learn about the cost of it, either, as long as it's couched effectively as taxing the ultra-mega-wealthy. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tom Price was just in a hearing on Capitol Hill. Oh good, I was right 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yet that's not how it turned out for the ACA. Sure, it was unpopular for a while, but it passed, it became unpopular for a while, and then when it started working and Republican plans to repeal it failed, it got popular again. The Democrats lost in 2010 and 2014 not because of the ACA, but because they had no unified strategy, and they ran away from a still-popular president. Trump voters who were using Obamacare willfully disbelieved he would do anything to it, because why would he want to make himself unpopular? Obviously he just planned to make it better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
The difference is that Trump & co are pushing poo poo that doesn't and can't even work, whereas universal healthcare is an objectively superior system. Hell, even a half-measure like the ACA ended up as too popular to repeal outright, so you'd quickly see a better system become goddamn untouchable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Trump voters who were using Obamacare willfully disbelieved he would do anything to it, because why would he want to make himself unpopular? Obviously he just planned to make it better. Vox had a (surprisingly) good article on this topic: quote:There was a persistent belief that Trump would fix these problems and make Obamacare work better. I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. In fact, some of the people I talked to hope that one of the more divisive pieces of the law — Medicaid expansion — might become even more robust, offering more of the working poor a chance at the same coverage the very poor receive. Cerebral Bore posted:The difference is that Trump & co are pushing poo poo that doesn't and can't even work, whereas universal healthcare is an objectively superior system. Hell, even a half-measure like the ACA ended up as too popular to repeal outright, so you'd quickly see a better system become goddamn untouchable. Exactly. Plus, even though "Europe does it better than us" hasn't been a particularly convincing argument up to this point, it's a fact that seems to be slowly but surely penetrating the American political psyche. Having real-world examples of systems that aren't perfect, but are still better than ours, bolsters the push for Medicare-for-All.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
quote:I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. And, hey, so far it's looking like he can't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Man, that's depressing. "obamacare isnt failing hard enough, lets see what we can do about that" Rs have been pushing "Obamacare is failing" for seven years; the blame for taking the funding from under it hasn't been laid at their feet as of yet and I doubt it ever will. They botched repeal-and-replace, so on to plan B. They're essentially going to union-bust Obamacare: make the funding source (individual mandate) optional, pick people off a percentage point at a time as their personal costs rise as a result of the lack of a mandate, culminating in shoving it off a cliff once it clears the tipping point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
oldskool posted:Rs have been pushing "Obamacare is failing" for seven years; the blame for taking the funding from under it hasn't been laid at their feet as of yet and I doubt it ever will. I'm hoping that will change. The Democrats would have to be so, so stupid to not pick up that ammo. (and maybe they are, but I really hope not)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And, hey, so far it's looking like he can't. No, but he can and has appointed people to oversee the enforcement of the law who will try to torpedo it instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tom Price was just in a hearing on Capitol Hill. That's a silly thing to say about the EHB because providers will jump all over any insurer that isn't giving them money they're required to by law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Xae posted:UHC is the same way. It polls really well when it is vague. It polls really poorly when you start looking at potential policies. Utter bullshit, the majority of Americans support Medicare for All: http://pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/01/kaiser-poll-suggests-support-medicare-for-all-is-more-than-two-thirds/ e:f;b, and of course Xae moves the goalposts to "well the question wasn't forty pages long with extensive explanations of every single component!!" HappyHippo posted:This is the dumbest strategy. Voters may not pay much attention but they tend to blame who's in charge for their problems, justified or not. Intentionally making poo poo worse is going to backfire with both the crowd that pays attention and the crowd that doesn't. Yeah remember the debt ceiling fiasco and how that totally backfired on the GOP? call to action fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:- HHS will not spend any money advertising Obamacare Open Enrollments going forward. FYI that quote is from January when they cut the advertising. He simply refused to answer the question today: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/price-trump-obamacare-undermine-aca
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And, hey, so far it's looking like he can't. So... are the really dumb somehow surprisingly clever? This topsy-turvy world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
call to action posted:Utter bullshit, the majority of Americans support Medicare for All: http://pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/01/kaiser-poll-suggests-support-medicare-for-all-is-more-than-two-thirds/ Just like in the automation thread, you do an incredible job at surface-level, knee-jerk analysis. If you would have read past the headline or even clicked to the actual KFF pol it states that support falls as you change the wording, and when you get single-payer it's below 50%. Of the range of options, a plurality supports building on the ACA by nearly 50% more than the next option of replace with a single government plan, repeal, or repeal and replace. Moreover, a majority of Democrats support that option at 54%. For Democrats, Medicare-For-All holds a 53% very positive reaction, but the same plan called Single-Payer is only 21%. When phrased as guaranteed healthcare for all blah, blah, it gets 50%. That's great! Except htat's still not good enough because, and this is the thing that might blow your mind, popular opinion doesn't actually mean a goddamn thing. If you think Congress does anything in this country, now or at any time in the past based soley on popular opinion, then you should perhaps take a break from these threads. Moreover, it's not clear that popular opinion SHOULD form policy, after all, it's popular opinion that is leading the UK to shoot itself in the economic face. All of this is to say that Xae's point is validated and we're only talking about wording, not actual policy packages, also that you don't read past the headlines in your own support links. When you start to throw opposition arguments and mixed messaging of politics in the 21st century, the waters get muddied real quick and people stop caring or worse, a backlash happens (2012). In general I'm in support of these ideas that you are, but the way so many posters in these threads approach it is from the perspective of "If we just believe hard enough it'll happen because our representatives WILL listen to us OR ELSE  " When in reality all of these situations are far more complex than the electorate soundbites would have you believe, that steadfast electorate support quickly waffles, and that the politicians promising these things begin to learn what their promises entail and go "oh poo poo, this isn't as easy as I imagined".These are all characteristics of course that are natural to human bureaucracies and can be expected and discussed. If you know of them and choose not to just ignore them. Boon fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah remember the debt ceiling fiasco and how that totally backfired on the GOP? Obama was in charge then. Also as dumb as it was it was essentially resolved before it significantly affected people's lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:40
|
|