|
DC Murderverse posted:allowing people to buy into (medicare/medicaid depending on bill). it's not single payer but it's definitely the first step on the way there. Why does getting to single payer involve this step instead of just pushing for single payer in the first place ? Not trying to be abrasive or challenging you btw, I'm just trying to understand the rationale - especially since all of this is theoretical anyway with Republicans controlling all three branches of government.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Some Democratic state legislatures are pushing for a Medicaid Opt In, which would probably be the easiest approach to a public option. The thinking is that you can evolve to something like single payer without invoking middle class rage, as people would gradually filter into Medicaid over time without disrupting private coverage. As the ACA rollout proves, people really like garbage plans and don't want to be forced to change. Gov. Sandoval vetoed the "Sprinklecare" push, but I'd imagine if the ACA survives and Dems take some state legislatures, that's something we'll see a lot of in time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
tekz posted:Why does getting to single payer involve this step instead of just pushing for single payer in the first place ? Not trying to be abrasive or challenging you btw, I'm just trying to understand the rationale - especially since all of this is theoretical anyway with Republicans controlling all three branches of government. Who the gently caress knows, every other nation that went into some kind of UHC system just went full bore. Canada and the UK both set up their systems within 4 years from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
tekz posted:Why does getting to single payer involve this step instead of just pushing for single payer in the first place ? Not trying to be abrasive or challenging you btw, I'm just trying to understand the rationale - especially since all of this is theoretical anyway with Republicans controlling all three branches of government. because the political makeup of the country would probably not accept a complete overhaul of the healthcare system that quickly. you would need to gradually make the idea of single payer more acceptable in public discourse. remember: most of the countries who have single payer (esp) in europe did so either at the beginning of their government or after near-total destruction because of WWII. also there's something to do with american individualism that needs to be adjusted in the average american's political mindset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
tekz posted:Why does getting to single payer involve this step instead of just pushing for single payer in the first place ? Not trying to be abrasive or challenging you btw, I'm just trying to understand the rationale - especially since all of this is theoretical anyway with Republicans controlling all three branches of government. Because a huge chunk of people current have employer based insurance that they like. Going to single payer without a public option first will mean forcing all those people off their current healthcare into something new and scary (to them). If you institute a strong public option, is should be a better alternative than private insurance and thus be something people want to use. berserker posted:Who the gently caress knows, every other nation that went into some kind of UHC system just went full bore. Canada and the UK both set up their systems within 4 years from scratch. But not even every nation with UHC has a single payer system. A strong public option would be UHC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
I want a strong public option so insurance has to compete with it and while that is going on we can take down big pharma, third strike needs to be at the AMA to allow anyone qualified to doctor instead of it being a commodity with absurd entry cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Not exactly synonymous with cost, since less value is spent by the capitalist to produce an item than is embodied in that item. This is the case because the capitalist pays the workers for their labor-power, rather than for however many hours of labor were worked. The value of labor-power is however much labor time is needed to produce all the things that the worker needs to keep on living. The actual number of hours the capitalist has the worker labor will always be over the value of labor-power. This additional labor time is the surplus-value that goes into the item, which is where the capitalist's profits come from. This I need to reveiw a little bit to understand better. Jizz Festival posted:But if you sold it, nobody would know that it was special to you. It would fetch the same price as any other pencil. Not at the price required, no. A better example might be some wildly historic person, say a history making president using a pen to sign a historical document. That pen is similarly exactly the same as any other pen in that particular batch off the factory floor, however, there is suddenly a demand for it and therefore a higher price indicating that there is something beyond use-value in it's value. This is where this theory loses me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Social democracy was good enough for Lenin and it's good enough for me
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
IDK, because from my pov single payer IS the compromise, incremental option. It doesn't address provider costs, which would probably be only manageable by something like the UK's NHS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Not endorsing the viewpoint, but one mark about why single payer was executed in some countries instead of others lies in the fact that most single-payer systems have simple institutional inertia working in their favor. All the "shock" died out a long time ago, and health-care was more primitive in general at the time of creation anyway. The US flirted with making that transition, but always had some other issue take precedence. Over time, our system evolved around the private entities with a few public-sector systems added under particularly successful Democrats able to scrape compromises together. It's also worth noting that UHC doesn't have to mean single payer. The German and Swiss systems might be a less disruptive, and therefore more politically tenable, goal toward achieving the goals of the left. Jacobin had an ok overview of the history of America's healthcare system a while back. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/trumpcare-obamacare-us-health-care
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Here's a good article about how hewing exactly to the theory and writings of Marx from 150 years ago is dumb https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/07/zombie-marx
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:Not endorsing the viewpoint, but one mark about why single payer was executed in some countries instead of others lies in the fact that most single-payer systems have simple institutional inertia working in their favor. All the "shock" died out a long time ago, and health-care was more primitive in general at the time of creation anyway. The US flirted with making that transition, but always had some other issue take precedence. Over time, our system evolved around the private entities with a few public-sector systems added under particularly successful Democrats able to scrape compromises together. If you're looking for a more in depth accounting, this is a good book on the topic as well: https://www.amazon.com/Social-Transformation-American-Medicine-profession/dp/0465079350
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Boon posted:If you're looking for a more in depth accounting, this is a good book on the topic as well: Well, that's going on my Christmas list. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:Not endorsing the viewpoint, but one mark about why single payer was executed in some countries instead of others lies in the fact that most single-payer systems have simple institutional inertia working in their favor. All the "shock" died out a long time ago, and health-care was more primitive in general at the time of creation anyway. The US flirted with making that transition, but always had some other issue take precedence. Over time, our system evolved around the private entities with a few public-sector systems added under particularly successful Democrats able to scrape compromises together. I actually really like the French system as a goal for the US, even though it's super gauche to support a UHC plan that's not single-payer right now. i imagine if we ever actually got to a point where we were deciding which UHC plan we want in the US we'd have more indepth questions about which way we wanted to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Boon posted:
Arbitrary was probably poor word choice. My point was pretty simple in that we can potentially evolve beyond capitalism because it is not the natural order of things, but merely a thing we created to deal with: Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:lol Stuff like this, which should be less of a problem as we move past scarcity into whatever post scarcity looks like. In a world where we produce enough food for no one to ever go hungry, and throw most of it away, there's no reason to keep treating it like Xboxes or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Public option is good because it provides a way to demonstrate that government healthcare can work, silencing that particular brand of stupid criticism. That said, the current I support single payer bill isn't single payer anyways. Medicare isn't a single payer system. That said, I'd love single payer. I'd love a public option. I'd love German style multi payer, or something out of the nordic countries. I'd love PUBLIC HEALTHCARE. We can has the details out later, or now, or whatever. I'll take whatever I can claw and grab and get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Any public plan with coverage as generous or better as the average plans offered by employers is going to cause those employers to drop insurance coverage as a benefit, because people can get the same thing for free and the employer won't have to pay for it The only way to prevent that disruption is for the public plans to be permanently second-rate. This is what the Democratic centrists want to be the case, but they will not say this out loud for obvious reasons
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Any public plan with coverage as generous or better as the average plans offered by employers is going to cause those employers to drop insurance coverage as a benefit, because people can get the same thing for free and the employer won't have to pay for it I honestly don't think they've thought of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Yeah, and even if they do think that, then we should push past that. A public option that's so good it destroys insurance would... greatly symplify a lot of things with instituting other forms of socialized healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Stuff like this, which should be less of a problem as we move past scarcity into whatever post scarcity looks like. In a world where we produce enough food for no one to ever go hungry, and throw most of it away, there's no reason to keep treating it like Xboxes or some poo poo. Oh yeah, agreed. I'm not sure we're in a post-scarcity world if we just worked together, but we assuredly are in a world where 'just working together' is not really a human strength.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Boon posted:Not at the price required, no. A better example might be some wildly historic person, say a history making president using a pen to sign a historical document. That pen is similarly exactly the same as any other pen in that particular batch off the factory floor, however, there is suddenly a demand for it and therefore a higher price indicating that there is something beyond use-value in it's value. See, items like this aren't really what Marx was interested in. To get a bit more into the weeds here, the value of an item is the socially necessary labor-time required to reproduce it. The "socially necessary" bit means that if you spent hours hand-carving a pencil, the value added to it would still only be the amount of labor-time necessary to make it with modern machinery. Likewise, if you owned a factory and bought a brand-new machine that doubled productivity, the value added to the pencils made in that factory would still be the higher amount of labor-time necessary to make it with the old machinery, until the use of the new machinery became widespread. You could argue that this pen of yours is completely unique, and so it cannot be reproduced and therefore does not have a measurable value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:See, items like this aren't really what Marx was interested in. I think I understand it better, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I honestly don't think they've thought of that. I think they have, it's why people keep talking about France and Germany, which as I understand are basically similar to Obamacare as it exists now except costs are more strictly regulated. They don't say it out loud but the centrists seem to me very consciously opposed to any form of a public option or single payer for that reason
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/912515296350613504 a real dedication u just dont see anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Boon posted:Oh yeah, agreed. I'm not sure we're in a post-scarcity world if we just worked together, but we assuredly are in a world where 'just working together' is not really a human strength. For some things no, obviously not. And for a lot of things, to be 'post-scarcity' will certainly mean massively changing the way we live. But right now we absolutely have the capacity to feed every last person on Earth, and it's our failures as a people that prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/912515296350613504 If only he had put it to his head and pulled the trigger. Now that would be some dedication.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Thanks for the comments everyone, especially the book reqs. I had a thing this evening I forgot about so I couldn't participate as it was happening but I'm going to go through and write down the books tomorrow. My own take on UBI is that it should replace other welfare spending, but not healthcare spending (I consider that entirely different). I'd rather give people the flexibility to make their lives the way they want, but really the most important thing is the benefit level. At any given benefit level, say $15k/year, I think cash is better (as long as it's indexed to inflation). But of course, 20k in food/housing/etc. assistance is better than 10k in cash. I don't think any of it works at all without healthcare as a right. That's a floor. The main thing is I just think there needs to be an absolute decoupling between working and surviving. They can't remain one in the same for much longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Healthcare should be a right. In addition to housing, food, education, and environmental health.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LanaDelRaytheon/status/912490390736871424
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS ENTIRE TIME IT'S SO OBVIOUS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
that's the look of a man who's spent entire weekends with his whole body coated in vaseline
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Lindsey, you ARE the demons... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Any public plan with coverage as generous or better as the average plans offered by employers is going to cause those employers to drop insurance coverage as a benefit, because people can get the same thing for free and the employer won't have to pay for it I think the disruption is the point. A public option isn't "free," it has premiums but they are less than private insurance premiums. Yes, employers would switch to the public plan over time, but that just brings us closer to single payer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
  "Obamacare is broken which is why we have introduced the Liability And Medical Emergency National Triage act. We call it the LAMENT act and unlike Obamacare it's very easy to figure out." On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Boon posted:Something I've never really pondered before about a 100% socialist economy is how are things valued? Like, if someone is paid for the 'actual' value of their labor, how is that determined? Why should people be paid for the 'actual' value of their labor? Hell, even asking that question involves buying into several premises that shouldn't necessarily be taken for granted, such as the idea that different people's labor has different "value".
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I mean, Social Democracy only has the same symbol as Socialists as coincidence. It's not like they have some sort of shared heritage at all, or some kind of umbrella organization that takes both. No sir. I'm confused as to what you're being sarcastic about here. I never said advocates for social democracy did or didn't fall under the umbrella of "leftist," just that I wasn't sure if they did. Social Democracy is a different thing than Socialism (not sure if you're trying to imply otherwise). Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Public option is good because it provides a way to demonstrate that government healthcare can work, silencing that particular brand of stupid criticism. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember Sanders' most recent bill being Actual Single Payer and just using the "Medicare For All" name for marketing reasons. Hellblazer187 posted:My own take on UBI is that it should replace other welfare spending, but not healthcare spending (I consider that entirely different). I'd rather give people the flexibility to make their lives the way they want, but really the most important thing is the benefit level. At any given benefit level, say $15k/year, I think cash is better (as long as it's indexed to inflation). But of course, 20k in food/housing/etc. assistance is better than 10k in cash. If you do this, what the heck happens to people who gently caress up with their finances? Many people have dependents, so they're not the only person who suffers for their financial mistakes (and that's assuming that you think anyone should go homeless or hungry due to financial mistakes in the first place, which is pretty hosed up IMO). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why should people be paid for the 'actual' value of their labor? Hell, even asking that question involves buying into several premises that shouldn't necessarily be taken for granted, such as the idea that different people's labor has different "value". If Ron and Rhonda work at the cup factory and Rhonda runs her machine at top speed to make 7 cups in the time it takes Ron to make 5 cups, Rhonda's labor is creating more value in the same amount of time. It's a pretty simple idea really. What shouldn't be taken for granted is the idea that different types of labor produce different value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
last night's town hall: it went really well also, graham tipped his hand and made it obvious that if he nukes obamacare, he wants to go after medicaid next i can't believe people thought this would be damaging to dems or help the repubs at all... https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/912490240199229440 bernie!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 08:26
|
|
