|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
"Single-payer," has become a catch-all like, "kleenex," or, "google." I'd be comfortable calling -- Public Sector: Medicare-for-All Private Sector: Co-Insurance, Supplemental Policies -- single-payer or 'a single-payer baseline.' We could even use bipartisan talking points like, "Everyone's covered. Everyone gets more-for-less. You keep your doctor. And if you can afford more, you can have more."
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:We could even use bipartisan talking points like, "Everyone's covered. Everyone gets more-for-less. You keep your doctor. And if you can afford more, you can have more." Hrrmmmm.... sounds familiar...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:We could even use bipartisan talking points like, "Everyone's covered. Everyone gets more-for-less. You keep your doctor. And if you can afford more, you can have more." Have more what? More fun surgeries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I do think that the Democrats should run on a strong principle: Financial means should have no bearing on a persons' access to healthcare. The actual process by which that gets put into action is fairly unimportant. The problem with the ACA isn't that it is not single payer, it is that it doesn't achieve the goal Passing a version of controlled market insurance that actually fixes the problem with Obamacare, AKA the fact that it does nothing to stop the growth of costs and just provides a minimal framework to provide some subsidies to people to buy private insurance, would be as difficult if not more than just passing a public option or single payer. You still have to confront the insurance companies and forcibly yank them off the public teat. You think they're going to be turned into nonprofits without any resistance? You still have to confront upper middle class people with good healthcare through their job who want to keep the two-tiered system where people without good jobs have shittier coverage alive. Paul Krugman has 0 interest in doing that though, because he thinks the status quo is good and is concern trolling rather than coming out as a conservative and saying we've moved far enough left, no more
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Have more what? More fun surgeries? I don't know why Acc is acting like his idea is any different from normal single payer. The way it generally works is everything "essential" gets covered by the government (cancer, broken bones, medication, etc), meanwhile the private sector covers elective things like plastic surgery. That's literally every existing single payer system in the world right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
The basic problem is that if you have robust guaranteed healthcare that's not tied to having a job, employers will kick people off their plans onto the public one. As they should, but then upper middle class people would get the same healthcare as the poors, unless they explicitly paid more. And you know which party has decided that upper middle class suburbanites is its ideal voter base?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Obamacare mostly kicked people off of lovely insurance plans and that loving caused a huge uproar. You're not paying attention if you think ending employer provided health insurance won't loving be a media shitstorm if the narrative doesn't go right. They turned end of life care into loving Death Panels and it worked too. People still think the death panels are coming and it made the ACA less popular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
I've just been watching from the sidelines in this thread but I wonder about the vitriol against the current set of tax benefits for home ownership and other subsiding programs of it. I'll agree it aids and abets white flight, but in the case of me and my fiancee it's the only reason we can contemplate home ownership in the city that we currently live in instead of having no choice but to pack up for some lovely suburb where we'll also probably need 2 cars. In the world where you were able to remove the subsidization of home buying would there be anything to make renting less of a gently caress You financially? Or is it a "this will suck because capitalism is a bad system" situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Obamacare mostly kicked people off of lovely insurance plans and that loving caused a huge uproar. You're not paying attention if you think ending employer provided health insurance won't loving be a media shitstorm if the narrative doesn't go right. I think a lot depends on the quality of the new single-payer. Obamacare kicked people off lovely private plans into other lovely private Obamacare plans whose future existence may not even be guaranteed. If people get kicked off their plans into one that's as good or better and that looks politically stable I think it will be different, though you're right the RWM is going to be hysterical anyways
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I don't know why Acc is acting like his idea is any different from normal single payer. The way it generally works is everything "essential" gets covered by the government (cancer, broken bones, medication, etc), meanwhile the private sector covers elective things like plastic surgery. That's literally every existing single payer system in the world right now. Single vs Multi Payer. If there are multiple companies administering the UHC plan(s), it's multi-payer UHC. Iirc, most UHC is multi-payer and, "single-payer," is used wrong in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Sextro posted:"this will suck because capitalism is a bad system" situation. Problem for a lot of cities is that the middle class is in the suburbs, depressing city investment, so only highest margin high end housing gets built up. Trends going in the right direction at least but, ehhh, I don''t know of a good solution. Ther ugly irony: I think you're going to see the state and federal subsidies that helped prop up white flight recede as black people move south and into suburbs, where they end up trapped outside gentrified cities and in structures that become increasingly frayed from lack of subsidizing white people enjoyed. Cities used to draw city limits to keep from having to pay for infrastructure of the sticks. White capital will invest/consolidate into sustainable cities, and those who can't get a food hold into them will be left with property of declining value in decaying neighborhoods 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:This is a really really bad post. Like embarrassingly bad. "Donald Trump won by being as racist and rapey as his base wanted, but democrats shouldn't pander to their base because then they'd have to do the things they said they'd do if they won." Is my interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I do think that the Democrats should run on a strong principle: Financial means should have no bearing on a persons' access to healthcare. The actual process by which that gets put into action is fairly unimportant. The problem with the ACA isn't that it is not single payer, it is that it doesn't achieve the goal You often toot about how single payer won't drive costs down, and then you proceed to tout the Dutch model and other forms of incentivizing access to private plans. What you fail to appreciate is that single payer by its very nature provides a unique means to drive down costs that these private plan based systems don't provide. I wonder why you continuously concern troll about the cost of healthcare itself as a criticism of single payer, while pushing for shittier policies that do even less to control costs!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Passing a version of controlled market insurance that actually fixes the problem with Obamacare, AKA the fact that it does nothing to stop the growth of costs and just provides a minimal framework to provide some subsidies to people to buy private insurance, would be as difficult if not more than just passing a public option or single payer. You still have to confront the insurance companies and forcibly yank them off the public teat. You think they're going to be turned into nonprofits without any resistance? You still have to confront upper middle class people with good healthcare through their job who want to keep the two-tiered system where people without good jobs have shittier coverage alive. Paul Krugman has 0 interest in doing that though, because he thinks the status quo is good and is concern trolling rather than coming out as a conservative and saying we've moved far enough left, no more a) public option would be cost control because insurers would have to compete against it b) only allow nonprofits on the exchanges (and thereby only nonprofits would receive subsidized premiums) c) public option would be good - or if it couldn't be, what faith would we have that single payer would be good
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:You often toot about how single payer won't drive costs down, and then you proceed to tout the Dutch model and other forms of incentivizing access to private plans. What you fail to appreciate is that single payer by its very nature provides a unique means to drive down costs that these private plan based systems don't provide. I wonder why you continuously concern troll about the cost of healthcare itself as a criticism of single payer, while pushing for shittier policies that do even less to control costs! I've never said that
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:a) public option would be cost control because insurers would have to compete against it What the gently caress are you trying to say in c)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
single payer would drive costs down single payer would be better policy than a public option because there's no actual value in shopping for insurance plans single payer furthermore is better than the public option because it would be cheaper, but I'm not worried about cost of either, so if it's easier to get a real and strong public option that is my friend, I'd be happy with that as opposed to risking trying for single payer and failing, because the wealthy have enough money to tax to pay for either and the problem in 2017 isn't that the country as a whole isn't rich enough
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I've never said that WhiskeyJuvenile posted:a) non-single payer uhc insurance plans can be required to be non-profit Edit: You clarified your point and I am satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:What the gently caress are you trying to say in c)? responding to quote:You still have to confront upper middle class people with good healthcare through their job who want to keep the two-tiered system where people without good jobs have shittier coverage alive. Why are we assuming that public option would be worse than current employer-sponsored plans? If we're assuming that Democrats would be incapable of creating a good public option, why would we assume that they could create good single payer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Medicaid is pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:responding to I'm saying that even if the coverage were the same or better you'd still have disruption of employer plans, whether through a public option or through a substantially more regulated market
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Arguably the ACA went wrong in aping employer paid plans and trying to get people to buy similarly schemed coverage on an individual market when they should've just gone with medicare style 20% insurance
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Medicaid is pretty sweet. maryland, for being all sorts of dumb, is very good if only for the fact that when i was unemployed i was able to easily get onto its medicaid, go to a medstar facility, and get treated for $0 it was crazy! my cousin living one state over in VA has been sitting on an untreated hernia for months now
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm saying that even if the coverage were the same or better you'd still have disruption of employer plans, whether through a public option or through a substantially more regulated market So?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/894677244161011714 So not only is it racist to criticize Harris, it is also all Bernie's fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm saying that even if the coverage were the same or better you'd still have disruption of employer plans, whether through a public option or through a substantially more regulated market Good! This is very good!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Does anyone actually care about twitter other than media people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Does anyone actually care about twitter other than media people? With the power of social media, propped up candidates can be demolished faster than they can be sold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
I'm talking about Krugman's argument, he says the most important thing is to avoid disrupting people who already get insurance through work, but I don't see how you could do any meaningful reform without doing that
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:So not only is it racist to criticize Harris, it is also all Bernie's fault. It's pretty disturbing how Bernie is getting presented as an Emmanuel Goldsteinesque character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:It's pretty disturbing how Bernie is getting presented as an Emmanuel Goldsteinesque character. But the hammer is a corncob.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I think a lot depends on the quality of the new single-payer. Obamacare kicked people off lovely private plans into other lovely private Obamacare plans whose future existence may not even be guaranteed. If people get kicked off their plans into one that's as good or better and that looks politically stable I think it will be different, though you're right the RWM is going to be hysterical anyways You're probably not wrong because people are Dumb As poo poo, but how many people ITT (who don't get it basically free from their employer) can say they're actually happy with their health insurance wrt cost? It's gotten so ludicrous that I doubt most people would mind.   e: Literally $11.60/hr out of your check if you want the mid-tier plan for a family.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:You're probably not wrong because people are Dumb As poo poo, but how many people ITT (who don't get it basically free from their employer) can say they're actually happy with their health insurance wrt cost? It's gotten so ludicrous that I doubt most people would mind. I think this is a misunderstanding of what "happy with my healthcare" means to most people. It's less an expression of approval for how the healthcare system is - disapproval of the current healthcare system runs at 60%+ - and more that they're happy to have healthcare. Loss aversion is one of the bigger hurdles to clear with convincing people that public non-profit healthcare is a force for good. "What if the government is bad and fucks it up, I won't have healthcare anymore" is a big fear that people have and we have to grapple with that. In many ways a big struggle in the short term for the modern American left is convincing Americans in a post-Boomer world that Reagan was wrong and government can be good, and then proving it by actually running the government well. The Democratic Party has never properly pushed back against the "run on 'government bad,' then get elected and prove it" model of Republicans and it's been devastating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
The problem with that big short term struggle is that we don't have a left, and the Democrats would never push back in any meaningful way. It would piss off the medical and financial industries too much.
Marxalot fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Aug 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:The problem is that we don't have a left, and the Democrats would never push back in any meaningful way. It would piss off the medical and financial industries too much. I mean, we don't have a left because the neoliberal realignment successfully killed the left in the '70s, but I was under the impression that the general consensus among the thread was the Bernie represents a revival of the American left and that a left-wing insurgency is occurring against the Democratic Party's centrist establishment. The common refrain is that "Bernie's message resonates with blue collar Midwesterners," and while I sort of agree with that, at a certain point if the new American left is successful they'll have to transition from being the anti-establishment outsiders to the people who actually run things and at that point you have to grapple with the deep, fundamental mistrust of institutions that many Americans presently feel, for varying reasons of varying justification. Single-payer universal healthcare is fundamentally a massive expansion of government power and oversight of the economy and you can't really gloss over that, we saw this with how Obamacare was perceived.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The common refrain is that "Bernie's message resonates with blue collar Midwesterners," and while I sort of agree with that, at a certain point if the new American left is successful they'll have to transition from being the anti-establishment outsiders to the people who actually run things and at that point you have to grapple with the deep, fundamental mistrust of institutions that many Americans presently feel, for varying reasons of varying justification. Single-payer universal healthcare is fundamentally a massive expansion of government power and oversight of the economy and you can't really gloss over that, we saw this with how Obamacare was perceived. People were suspicious of obamacare because it wasn't clear how much things were going to cost them. Few people gave a poo poo about government power over the economy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
A huge part of Obamacare's failure to get public approval is due to the god awful job the administration did selling it, and countering right wing propaganda. To such an extent that a significant portion of the electorate doesn't actually know what Obamacare is, only that they were told it was bad. So the issue, imho, isn't that the public is opposed to government expansion on principle, it is that the government needs to do a better job representing itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, we don't have a left because the neoliberal realignment successfully killed the left in the '70s, but I was under the impression that the general consensus among the thread was the Bernie represents a revival of the American left and that a left-wing insurgency is occurring against the Democratic Party's centrist establishment. At some point we'll have to grapple with the fact that the ruling class is subverting democracy via total control of centralized mass media and massive disruption of decentralized media. If there is a good answer to that which doesn't involve brute force, I haven't heard it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A huge part of Obamacare's failure to get public approval is due to the god awful job the administration did selling it, and countering right wing propaganda. To such an extent that a significant portion of the electorate doesn't actually know what Obamacare is, only that they were told it was bad. I don't really disagree with this assessment, but I don't really see how that changes the point, which is that it's a problem that has to be dealt with. The original supposition was that "people won't care about changes to their healthcare because most people's healthcare is bad," which I don't buy because the rate of satisfaction with one's own healthcare is high even as disapproval of the system is also high. Hence, I why I'm arguing that a lot of that is loss aversion and a skepticism of the public that public healthcare is better than what they have. All I'm saying is that assuming it will be an easy sell to America at large, as opposed to the enthusiastic supporters who show up at rallies to defend Obamacare, is probably not a good assumption. quote:We can start by seizing the assets of News Corp and using the proceeds to buy MRI machines. I can already see the headlines about "brutal leftists advocate subjugation of the press."  Not that you're necessarily wrong, that's just the long and short of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
It's not going to be easy, I just don't think the reasons are ideological, or that most people are particularly invested in defending one system of healthcare over another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 09:24
|
|