|
esquilax posted:There is no actual consistent definition of single payer other than "what I imagine the mostest leftist health care is". People consistently call US Medicare single payer even though it is a system with multiple payers I wish people would adopt "public option" as the rallying cry instead. It's much more achievable.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Lote posted:The US already has a single payer system. It's called the VA and there are 6 million people getting care there. They also have a ton more services offered than regular insurance. Bad example duders
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wish people would adopt "public option" as the rallying cry instead. It's much more achievable. Plus, a well-run public option can easily become a de facto single payer option, without forcing people to switch until they're convinced it's better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Lote posted:The US already has a single payer system. It's called the VA and there are 6 million people getting care there. They also have a ton more services offered than regular insurance. So service guarantees citizenship?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Plus, a well-run public option can easily become a de facto single payer option, without forcing people to switch until they're convinced it's better. Shhhh you'll give it away Plus it's just luntzier language. An *option* sounds far better than *obscure term that must be explained*
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wish people would adopt "public option" as the rallying cry instead. It's much more achievable. If you let the states run public options then the deep south will create things like whites-only insurance pools. You need a federally regulated public option across state lines for it to really work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:If you let the states run public options then the deep south will create things like whites-only insurance pools. You need a federally regulated public option across state lines for it to really work. There are a number of different potential public options. Buy in Medicaid would work a lot differently from buy in Medicare for example. Regardless of program though explicit racial bias would be blocked by the 1964 civil rights act. Implicit bias of course is a real danger in any program and must be constantly fought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is a bad way to think about it because how do I judge what my care is likely to be like if it's serious? I judge it by how it is every day. That's my only experience with it. If I, or my kid, faces much longer waiting periods for non-emergency care in a new health care system I'm going to assume I will face a worse situation if I need more serious care in this new health care system and I'm not likely to be all that mollified by statistics. And that's not an unreasonable assumption: that's how we function all the time. If the system is bad at the little stuff, I'm not going to trust it when it comes to the big stuff because if it fucks up the big stuff I'm hosed. In practice, it's fine. British people do not think "Well, I had to wait 3 weeks for my travel vaccinations, so imagine how long I'd have to wait for cancer surgery!" because they all have experience of knowing older folk who actually got cancer and were treated promptly and excellently. This is the kind of fear Americans have, because they have been trained to hate and fear government. And they may not be all that irrational, as Republicans have no scruples about hurting people to "prove" government doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are a number of different potential public options. Buy in Medicaid would work a lot differently from buy in Medicare for example. Places are still fighting Brown v Board of Education. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/17/478389720/after-50-year-legal-struggle-mississippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate A federally-administered program stands a better chance of reaching the people in the greatest need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I wish people would adopt "public option" as the rallying cry instead. It's much more achievable. gently caress this attitude, man. This kind of politics is hosed and gives us Democrats like Hillary. We've gotta push hard for the biggest change possible, that's the only way people are going to be motivated, is if they think there's something that could be different enough to actually improve their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Places are still fighting Brown v Board of Education. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/17/478389720/after-50-year-legal-struggle-mississippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate Ok, I'm not sure what sort of distinctions you're drawing. People are still fighting discrimination in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid too. Medicaid is state administered with federal oversight, while Medicare and to a greater extent SS are federally adminstered. State vs federal administration isn't binary, it's a spectrum. The fight against discrimination will never end, it's ongoing forever and must be. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:gently caress this attitude, man. This kind of politics is hosed and gives us Democrats like Hillary. We've gotta push hard for the biggest change possible, that's the only way people are going to be motivated, is if they think there's something that could be different enough to actually improve their lives. Push hard but push smart. Public option Medicaid / Medicare gets us to public health care for all a *lot* faster than trying to explain what single payer.means to a million million old people. You're functionally arguing semantics and the semantics of "public option" are better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Bad example duders It has its problems but they're workable. They have a ton of protocols so people get their health screening tests done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:In practice, it's fine. British people do not think "Well, I had to wait 3 weeks for my travel vaccinations, so imagine how long I'd have to wait for cancer surgery!" because they all have experience of knowing older folk who actually got cancer and were treated promptly and excellently. No. This is neither an irrational fear nor an "american fear because they have been trained to hate and fear government" and if you think something so stupid you're going to be in for a very rude awakening. This is that if you create a new health care system people will judge it by their interactions with that program. If those interactions are negative, that will influence their opinion of what future interactions will be like. This can be briefly summarized as "first impressions matter." It is why, for example, Obama fired a cabinet secretary over the botched Obamacare website rollout. It mattered. Looking at the NHS is basically arguing that, once the program is established and long-running people may judge it differently. When they've been working with it all their life or for a while, they know what is representative and what is not. Sure, of course. The issue is getting there. And you will not get there by ignoring people's experiences with the program. You will not get there by assuming that people will not judge the program harshly if it underfunds routine care. Healthcare matters because if you gently caress it up, you can die. People don't like loving around with health care as a result. "It's going to be better, trust me" will get you nowhere when people's first impressions are that it is worse. This is one of those real-world things that people try to assume away. You can't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think the House is just going to vote on the Senate bill. I doubt it. With competent legislators, everyone's asks would be included in the amendments made during the vote-a-rama, McConnell would essentially finalize a bill both chambers can agree on since he gets the final wraparound amendment, and then voila it just gets scored by the CBO and both chambers vote it through. That's essentially how it's always been done. But likely what's going to happen is that the Senate parliamentarian says refusing to subsidize plans that cover abortion is against Byrd Rule, Pence overrules it. Now suddenly everything HFC didn't get because it would violate reconciliation rules is on the table, and the joint conference turns into Meadows reaching into a bag of bark scorpions and throwing them at Mitch McConnell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Push hard but push smart. Public option Medicaid / Medicare gets us to public health care for all a *lot* faster than trying to explain what single payer.means to a million million old people. You're functionally arguing semantics and the semantics of "public option" are better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Or you push hard for single payer and then compromise with a public option when push comes to shove. Why give up the compromise position to begin with? because public option is a much better solution in practice and when you push for two loaves and get one you get the left wing ranting about betrayers for eight years
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Push hard but push smart. Public option Medicaid / Medicare gets us to public health care for all a *lot* faster than trying to explain what single payer.means to a million million old people. You're functionally arguing semantics and the semantics of "public option" are better. Maybe I'm misinformed but to me I only hear single payer and Medicare for all, I'm fine with the second as a rallying cry as well because it seems almost synonymous. I don't hear "public option" almost ever except in the context of how Lieberman hosed us Even to me, a big part of it is single payer gets rid of those loving health insurance companies and public option sounds like they still exist as an alternative. What motivates people better, "health insurance companies are still good, we can work with them!" or "grind those fuckers who screwed us all into the dirt"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:because public option is a much better solution in practice and when you push for two loaves and get one you get the left wing ranting about betrayers for eight years
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:This is not what happened with the ACA I'm not sure how that analogy should go. You pushed for Jersey Mikes, but instead your mom gave you white bread with bologna that had been sitting out for a couple hours instead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Or you push hard for single payer and then compromise with a public option when push comes to shove. Why give up the compromise position to begin with? You don. You push for both. But to get anywhere with either you have to sell, and selling a public option is the first step. You will never convince someone to support single payer who has not first been convinced that a public option would be preferable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
I mean, the Obamacare passage showed clearly that compromising with republicans is a futile endevor. But Democrats are going to need to agree within themselves on what they want and the more ill will generated about that, the worse off. Democrats should run in 2020 on what they're actually going to do if they get power, and then do that. Nobody benefits from them running on single payer and then doing a public option unless you think that Republicans will suddenly sign onto a public option and end the health care wars (and if they do, they need some good health care pronto for that concussion). A public option is by far the best way to get to single payer because it lets you set the program up right in a way that entirely avoids the most significant problem with health care reform: people who have health care that is good enough who are concerned about losing it. You make the public option, you show it works, and then you start subsidizing it more and more and push out the lowest end of the insurance market more and more and so it becomes a de facto single-payer system without anyone ever being forced off their health insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Just looking how easy it is. "Hey, why can't we all just buy into Medicare?" Bam, you've convinced people to support a public option Now spend a half-hour explaining what single payer is
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
I hope that with all the outcry the ACA has been getting that we will have a single payer system within my lifetime. A lot of people had to get insurance for the first time in their lives and they actually liked it. It wasn't perfect but I think most sane people understood we need something to fall back on that isn't bankruptcy. I think Obama said it best in that there were things wrong with it but you can always try to change them for the better. Just pitching it on the floor helps nobody except for maybe the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:This is not what happened with the ACA yes it is, we got 25 million people health insurance and got it into the public's mind that it was the job of the federal government to ensure health insurance for everyone, something that is so widely accepted now republicans are forced to concede it to a degree even in their horrific trumpcare bills the ACA did more to improve people's lives for more people than really any bill I can think of in decades and people don't give it credit, not just because republicans lie about it, but the far left whines only that it doesn't go far enough and minimizes its achievements
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Running on "Medicare For All" would be both. That could mean a single payer system where Medicare is expanded to cover everyone. It could also mean a public option where Medicare enrollment is opened to everyone. Medicare is a long-established and incredibly popular program so it out to be an easy thing to rally people around. evilweasel posted:yes it is, we got 25 million people health insurance and got it into the public's mind that it was the job of the federal government to ensure health insurance for everyone, something that is so widely accepted now republicans are forced to concede it to a degree even in their horrific trumpcare bills bawfuls fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yes it is, we got 25 million people health insurance and got it into the public's mind that it was the job of the federal government to ensure health insurance for everyone, something that is so widely accepted now republicans are forced to concede it to a degree even in their horrific trumpcare bills You mean that the "far left" was absolutely correct about the weaknesses of the ACA, and now you're reduced to angry lashing out against people who have better sense than you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/879759025151377411 lol this rollout of the senate bill has been a disaster
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Public option and single payer are Venn diagrams that mostly overlap anyway, given time, because health care is not really a free market good and public options are almost always.much.more efficient and cheaper anyway. Medicaid is the most efficient health care program in the country. Given time, public options will drive private ones out of the market. This is more a "how we get there" discussion than an end-goal argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yes it is, we got 25 million people health insurance and got it into the public's mind that it was the job of the federal government to ensure health insurance for everyone, something that is so widely accepted now republicans are forced to concede it to a degree even in their horrific trumpcare bills People are pissed about the ACA specifically because Democrats really, really like it as a rallying cry to maintain the status quo instead of continually working to improve things. Like in CA, Bad Dems are arguing we shouldn't be pushing for state health insurance reform because we need to "protect the ACA" even though we obviously can't do poo poo about things federally, because they're Bad Dems. The context of how people complain about the ACA is really important. I think it's clear that leftists (real ones) do want it to not get destroyed right now, but also that it SHOULD be criticized because there still are millions of people it leaves behind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Like, it's absolutely obvious to anybody with half a brain that actually successful and lasting social programs have to be universal in scope, because the biggest threat towards them isn't people who are afraid that they'll get worse service than before, it's people who see no benefit personally and hence are supportive of tearing it all down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Public option and single payer are Venn diagrams that mostly overlap anyway, given time, because health care is not really a free market good and public options are almost always.much.more efficient and cheaper anyway. Medicaid is the most efficient health care program in the country. Given time, public options will drive private ones out of the market. This is more a "how we get there" discussion than an end-goal argument. I think any realistic attempt to get single payer in the US has to start with open enrollment in Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
"Open Medicare" seems like it'd be the easiest position to "sell," but of course you'd get some people worried there won't be enough Medicare left for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
It wouldn't even get rid of your good work insurance you'd just have more options but bloo bloo I have to pay 30 bucks a paycheck for everyone else (ignores Medicare).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Zikan posted:https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/879759025151377411 They shouldn't be allowed to delay. Force em to fillibuster their own bill til the recess
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
And you would think a healthy and smart population would be a good financial investment for corporations. But what the gently caress would I know?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Azhais posted:They shouldn't be allowed to delay. Force em to fillibuster their own bill til the recess That's what is happening. It's just that this is how a filibuster works in the Senate now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:And you would think a healthy and smart population would be a good financial investment for corporations. But what the gently caress would I know? It is for ten years down the road. But not next fiscal quarter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:And you would think a healthy and smart population would be a good financial investment for corporations. But what the gently caress would I know? They like people being afraid to quit jobs and have their health insurance lapse/change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. This is neither an irrational fear nor an "american fear because they have been trained to hate and fear government" and if you think something so stupid you're going to be in for a very rude awakening. This is that if you create a new health care system people will judge it by their interactions with that program. If those interactions are negative, that will influence their opinion of what future interactions will be like. This can be briefly summarized as "first impressions matter." It is why, for example, Obama fired a cabinet secretary over the botched Obamacare website rollout. It mattered. I think you are yelling at me for agreeing with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:29
|
|