|
My basic argument that has worked with a few is this: we pay 3-4x per capita for healthcare with nowhere near the best quality than any other place in the world does. Everyone else in the world has moved to a single payer system or some sort of universal coverage because it is flat out more efficient. A move to a single payer system will benefit the wallet of your "middle class (~50k/year)" republican rural voter in actual take home pay if nothing else by eliminating the profit margins the insurance company faces now. These are the people hit hardest by the ACA and are the ones that by and large voted in Trump. These are the people we have to convince to change.
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
A ton of people like their healthcare/insurance because they don't have to use it in any significant way. Actually having to use it (surgery, ambulance, etc..) is a smaller portion of those that have it. So explaining that people lose their houses is usually met with a literal "not my problem" attitude. And it comes from the more christian heavy part of my friends which loving blows my mind.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:16
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
BarbarianElephant posted:But they are still doing it, aren't they? And the base will find some way to rationalize it. They've already been thwarted once in a humiliating fashion due to their base rebelling, and that's when we're talking about a half-measure like the ACA. If you have a truly universal system you eliminate a huge chunk of the criticisms people have about Obamacare and make the program so much harder to attack. This is literally why you go for big and universal solutions when it comes to welfare services. Mr. Nice! posted:I'm talking about the republican base. I'm talking about the general population of west texas, north florida, kansas, oklahoma, etc. Like it or not, these are the people that you have to reach out to right now because they're the only people that actually get the gently caress out and vote. These are the people I argue with and try to convince daily because they're the ones we have to convince. It won't happen unless these people specifically vote out sitting republicans. These are the mid term voters. Going after suburban petty bourg republicans is a sucker's game because they'll likely vote GOP until the day they die. What you have to do is motivate the base and appeal to the working class again. Hell, we've recently seen a Democrat managing to get within striking distance in KS04, and that's one of the reddest districts in the country. It's plenty doable if the Democrats shape up and actually fight for something good rather than just against the GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
To steal a metaphor from Citizen Tayne aka Tori CMOS: people from rural areas only know one or two people on welfare or any kind of government assistance. The only really destitute/poor people they see is Tom the town drunk and everyone knows Tom is a fuckup, therefore anyone who uses the programs Tom uses is a fuckup also. People extrapolate their life experiences to paint stuff they haven't ever really experienced or will understand. They don't understand anything beyond "I'm going broke paying for a bum's insurance."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:They've already been thwarted once in a humiliating fashion due to their base rebelling, and that's when we're talking about a half-measure like the ACA. If you have a truly universal system you eliminate a huge chunk of the criticisms people have about Obamacare and make the program so much harder to attack. This is literally why you go for big and universal solutions when it comes to welfare services. I never said we're going to get them to vote against republicans. I said get them to vote for a different one. I've already seen some pushes for primary challengers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You see, I don't think healthcare is a right, though. It's just a commodity. Plus, all of those socialized healthcare systems have horrible problems I heard about. Busses of canadian seniors coming to the USA because the wait times in Canada would kill them. I also don't trust the government and think that this should be a state issue. I like my employer provided HSA because if I don't get sick it's just free money coming to me and a break in taxes. Sure I have to pay for a secondary insurance plan, but that's just being prudent. Thats fine, I really dont think anyone should touch YOUR healthcare. I would like to opt into and pay an additional amount of taxes per the governments expectations to join into medicare. I am willing to wait in the death lines, please let me wait in the death lines. Currently I don't even have a death line to wait in. I want to pay for my own insurance, I just, as much you cringe at the thought, have the government run my insurance. I can try and give you the reasons I dont trust insurance companies and you really shouldn't either, but I dont want to do that. I just want you, as a cistzen, to allow me to enroll and pay for the government healthcare system. Also whats the cost of your secondary plan, that seems like something worth discussing. What if that's all you needed, at least again you have a death line to wait in. Put a price on it and I'll go fight for that price for you. Because I believe you deserve choice. If you don't believe we deserve this choice let us please get into a moralistic argument about your diet fatty. 
BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 01:59 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Hell if I know what he's paying for his secondary plan. I'm a welfare queen that uses VA coverage. I was just parroting standard republican retorts.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Hell if I know what he's paying for his secondary plan. I'm a welfare queen that uses VA coverage. Do a better job of call and response then, I assume your doing that, be a better Amerigan please.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
The CBO score could force the House to step up to the plate yet again. What would they need to do to get more deficit reduction out of it? Slashing the subsidies even further would seem to doom it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:The CBO score could force the House to step up to the plate yet again. What would they need to do to get more deficit reduction out of it? Slashing the subsidies even further would seem to doom it. I think there's no reason to believe this would actually fail the CBO score, but it's hilarious anyway. If it did, they'd be in for a world of hurt.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
oh, hello: https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/865315899355660289 apparently the theory is that in states that gut the essential health benefits, a lot more people will sign up for "free" health insurance that costs exactly the amount of the subsidies but covers like, nothing, blowing up the cost of the subsidies
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
It's a possibility. CBO was rushed last time and didn't really get to calculate the additional cost of subsidies paid by the federal government as part of the expenses of AHCA. Between insurers being able to charge you more based on your health status (i.e., the preexisting condition changes) and the government's reticence to actually pay for the high risk corridors, you'd see average premiums jump up substantially along with subsidies.evilweasel posted:apparently the theory is that in states that gut the essential health benefits, a lot more people will sign up for "free" health insurance that costs exactly the amount of the subsidies but covers like, nothing, blowing up the cost of the subsidies Using the same line of reasoning, subsidies could vanish entirely in states where EHBs were gutted. Plans are constrained only by actuarial value, i.e. the percentage amount that the insurer is expected to pay on the plan across their entire pool of insured for essential health benefits. So a (70% AV) silver plan that covers pretty much nothing could have a premium of $10/mo if the insurer was only projected to pay $7 per enrollee on average. And your subsidies are based on the second-cheapest silver plan available to you, so... Actually I'm wondering now why nobody has brought this up before.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:It's a possibility. CBO was rushed last time and didn't really get to calculate the additional cost of subsidies paid by the federal government as part of the expenses of AHCA. Between insurers being able to charge you more based on your health status (i.e., the preexisting condition changes) and the government's reticence to actually pay for the high risk corridors, you'd see average premiums jump up substantially along with subsidies. Because the AHCA does away with the Obamacare subsidies in favor of an entirely new formula.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:It's a possibility. CBO was rushed last time and didn't really get to calculate the additional cost of subsidies paid by the federal government as part of the expenses of AHCA. Between insurers being able to charge you more based on your health status (i.e., the preexisting condition changes) and the government's reticence to actually pay for the high risk corridors, you'd see average premiums jump up substantially along with subsidies. Two reasons. 1. In the AHCA, subsidies are decoupled from that "Second lowest cost silver plan" calculation 2. Under current regulations and professional actuarial guidelines at least, the calculation of the actuarial value depends on the benefits covered. If you don't cover hospitalization, e.g., the actuarial value would tank and it wouldn't be a silver plan any more.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:The CBO score could force the House to step up to the plate yet again. What would they need to do to get more deficit reduction out of it? Slashing the subsidies even further would seem to doom it. evilweasel posted:The subsidies offered by the AHCA are garbage. They don't come close to letting poor people buy health insurance. So when you can only sell real health insurance, the poor don't use those subsidies: they simply don't have health insurance. So we have, say, 100 people. Subsidy is $2,000 30 are too poor to buy health care even with the subsidy, so the subsidy costs a total of $140,000 (70*2,000). Is it actually possible they hosed it up this bad? Also what's to stop the GOP from ordering the CBO that no one will actually make/buy the dogshit insurance?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
esquilax posted:1. In the AHCA, subsidies are decoupled from that "Second lowest cost silver plan" calculation Yeah, I somehow missed that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Why does this apply if the Senate is just going to replace the text of the bill with their own anyway? Does the house bill coming in have to meet certain conditions before it can even be considered, regardless of how it will look after amendments?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/865331682882310145
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:oh, hello:  Do you mean to tell me that the Republican plan involves spending $X in order to keep $(less than X) from being redistributed to the undeserving, lazy poor?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
CBO is out: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752 23 million more uninsured by 2026 but it's able to go via reconciliation. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/867480212929425408 https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/867482139566145536
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
I was surprised by how limited the externality cost estimates are.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I was surprised by how limited the externality cost estimates are. Yeah, this was a super-generous score. The loss of a hundred billion to 18% of the economy day 1 would be horrific. I imagine CBO's assumption would be that people would accept a 50% increase to premiums because it's more rational than dying but all those people will just walk from the individual market.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Yeah, this was a super-generous score. The loss of a hundred billion to 18% of the economy day 1 would be horrific. I imagine CBO's assumption would be that people would accept a 50% increase to premiums because it's more rational than dying but all those people will just walk from the individual market. That too, but I was thinking of secondary costs to government caused by medical care and other costs incurred by the newly under- and uninsured.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
"Talking Points Memo posted:Rigzone failed to note that Squire Patton Boggs represents oodles of health care interests. But it included Boehner’s response to Republicans’ tumultuous attempts to repeal Obamacare: Trump “did what he could” with health care, Boehner said, but he should have focused on repairing Obamacare, rather than repealing and replacing it. There are no words for how much I hate this loathsome creature.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/4HealthyCA/status/870432927271628800
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
"Oh sure, like an account named "Healthy CA" isn't biased" - repubs, probably
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Major wrinkle here:quote:...
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
I learned this year that a single-payer bill passed completely in 2006, but was vetoed by Schwarzenegger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
They did that a couple times iirc, although like the Republicans' endless votes to repeal Obamacare, as soon as they got an executive from their party they magically couldn't find the votes to pass it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-senators-weigh-taxing-employer-health-plans-1496350662quote:Senate Republicans set on reworking the Affordable Care Act are considering taxing employer-sponsored health insurance plans, a move that would meet stiff resistance from companies and potentially raise taxes on millions of people who get coverage on the job. (There's no way they have the balls to do this. Mike Lee is probably on an island.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Elotana posted:https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-senators-weigh-taxing-employer-health-plans-1496350662 GOP has hated employer paid insurance for decades, they just have no way of abolishing it without enraging their whitebread base that overwhelmingly loves it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Not just the base: together with the other changes (Medicaid, individual market), they'd be negatively impacting something like 77% of the population, including untold millions of independents. They clearly give no shits about the poor, but even so, that's too many people to gently caress over all at once, even for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Taxing employer based plans is one of the best ways to move people to single payer, if there's a public option to move to people towards
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
rscott posted:Taxing employer based plans is one of the best ways to move people to single payer, if there's a public option to move to people towards Found the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Even with out a public option taxing the group plans provided by employers is a good thing. If everyone was in the individual pool things would work much better, and it would make insurance companies accountable to their members for the first time ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Unfortunately, dedicated revenue streams and concrete costs are the quickest ways to make things unpopular. This is especially true if it is a "new" cost. Lots of programs continue to exist because they are paid for out of general revenue funds and can't have their funding source zeroed out. How absolutely infuriating. I already pay nearly 3k a year for health insurance premiums for a plan that called me a sucker when it didn't cover a dime for sewing up my foot last year. I suspect this 60% may be people on heavily subsidized individual plans that I don't qualify for because my employer offers a group plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Elotana posted:https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-senators-weigh-taxing-employer-health-plans-1496350662 Killing employer-based health insurance would remove the last huge barrier to single payer. If the GOP is smart they'd realize it and kill it dead. Of course the GOP is so short-sighted at this point they can't see into next week, much less next year so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
gg looks like yertle the loving turtle is going to do it: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/06/senate-republicans-obamacare-repeal-timing-239186
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Medicare For All, 2021. Mark that on your calendars, kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Somehow the most enraging part of that story is that they were won over with a loving PowerPoint presentation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 07:23
|
|
