|
So, now that Republicans control the VA legislature, is it better for Northham to expand Medicaid with means testing to appease them (assuming this is an option at all) or to just not expand Medicaid at all?
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Democrazy posted:To focus on your point about Colorado, and ignoring your assertion about the progressive bonafides of an organization that provides affordable healthcare services to vulnerable populations, don’t you find it worrying that the proponents of single payer weren’t able to convince a majority of voters in a purple state? Regardless of whatever incentives politicians have to push against single payer, surely if voters are hungry for leftward change, they would want to reform the system. But instead nearly 79% of people who voted in Colorado soundly rejected the measure. The only explanations that make sense are that either the campaign or proposal was bad, or that people reject the idea outright. As someone who would favor Medicare For All, both explanations are concerning for me. It says that the advocates to the left on healthcare may not be doing enough to convince people. when republicans sabotage healthcare expansion campaigns, this proves republicans must be opposed at all costs when democrats sabotage healthcare expansion campaigns, it proves the people must just not want any more of those ~entitlements~
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:To focus on your point about Colorado, and ignoring your assertion about the progressive bonafides of an organization that provides affordable healthcare services to vulnerable populations, don’t you find it worrying that the proponents of single payer weren’t able to convince a majority of voters in a purple state? Regardless of whatever incentives politicians have to push against single payer, surely if voters are hungry for leftward change, they would want to reform the system. But instead nearly 79% of people who voted in Colorado soundly rejected the measure. The only explanations that make sense are that either the campaign or proposal was bad, or that people reject the idea outright. As someone who would favor Medicare For All, both explanations are concerning for me. It says that the advocates to the left on healthcare may not be doing enough to convince people. The entire democrat machine in CO put their thumbs on the scale to kill it, to the point where even my limousine liberal tech pals who live in Denver started to sound like red baiting Birchers about coloradocare. It’s a bit rich to kill something and then point to it’s corpse as evidence the people don’t want it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The entire democrat machine in CO put their thumbs on the scale to kill it, to the point where even my limousine liberal tech pals who live in Denver started to sound like red baiting Birchers about coloradocare. Would you care to elaborate on that first point?Did the Colorado Democratic Party coerce or trick voters into voting no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Would you care to elaborate on that first point?Did the Colorado Democratic Party coerce or trick voters into voting no? If they didn't support it they are a loving waste. I'd accuse you of moving the goalposts but I think yours are just in an entirely different spot to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Would you care to elaborate on that first point?Did the Colorado Democratic Party coerce or trick voters into voting no? They spread enough FUD about the law that it took me months of explaining in slack why every point the democrats made was disingenuous or wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:So, now that Republicans control the VA legislature, is it better for Northham to expand Medicaid with means testing to appease them (assuming this is an option at all) or to just not expand Medicaid at all? Some Virginia Republicans are making noise that they see the writing on the wall and will likely vote to expand Medicaid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:But you didn't? I asked for someone arguing that the growth of high-deductible plans causing people to forgo care was a good thing. You provided someone arguing that a reduction in the growth of spending is a good thing. That only tracks if a meaningful part of the slowing growth is because an increase in high deductible plans is causing people to forgo care. Absent evidence of that, you provided someone making an entirely different argument. quote:Obamacare is responsible for the good things it caused since it was enacted. It's responsible for the bad things it caused since it was enacted. It's not responsible for all of the good and bad things that have happened since it was enacted.... especially when there's no explanation for how it caused them. That's how it can be both responsible for A Good Thing it caused AND not responsible for an unrelated Bad Thing in healthcare. Not even a bit suspicious!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:They spread enough FUD about the law that it took me months of explaining in slack why every point the democrats made was disingenuous or wrong. Who? Was it just Democratic voters spreading information amongst themselves, official Democratic communications, what? And in any case, isn’t it the responsibility of those who are in favor of a measure to campaign in favor of the measure?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If they didn't support it they are a loving waste. I'd accuse you of moving the goalposts but I think yours are just in an entirely different spot to begin with. If you want to assert that single payer is popular among voters and that the only reason it fails is due to politicians, it helps when voters back that by supporting single payer when given the opportunity, but the vote wasn’t even close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Who? Was it just Democratic voters spreading information amongst themselves, official Democratic communications, what? The current and former democratic governors of Colorado campaigned against it using bullshit non-arguments like "The constitution is already burdened with too many constitutional measures, let alone one of this cost and magnitude."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If you want to assert that single payer is popular among voters and that the only reason it fails is due to politicians, it helps when voters back that by supporting single payer when given the opportunity, but the vote wasn’t even close. Maybe single payer would be more popular among voters if they weren't being deceived about it by politicians they trust?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If you want to assert that single payer is popular among voters and that the only reason it fails is due to politicians, it helps when voters back that by supporting single payer when given the opportunity, but the vote wasn’t even close. And people are pointing out to you that powerful parts of the Democratic machine actively sabotaged it. So...acting like this was a clear bellwether of how voters view single payer is pretty dishonest of you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Who? Was it just Democratic voters spreading information amongst themselves, official Democratic communications, what? are we conceding at this point that the Democratic party establishment is, in fact, against single payer
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:are we conceding at this point that the Democratic party establishment is, in fact, against single payer I think this runs into the problem where you (not necessarily you zp in particular) start defining anyone disagreeing with you as "establishment." Anyone opposing single payer should be primaried, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And people are pointing out to you that powerful parts of the Democratic machine actively sabotaged it. So...acting like this was a clear bellwether of how voters view single payer is pretty dishonest of you. quote:Coloradans for Coloradans, an ad-hoc group opposing single payer in Colorado, revealed that it raised $1 million over the first five months of this year. The group was formed to defeat Amendment 69, the ballot measure before voters this year that would change the Colorado constitution and permit a system that would automatically cover every state resident’s health care. Wow, this is super hosed up. I hadn't really followed the Colorado stuff because I don't live there, thanks for this article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think this runs into the problem where you (not necessarily you zp in particular) start defining anyone disagreeing with you as "establishment." True, but given what I'm reading in the Intercept piece, I think it's pretty fair to label this "Coloradans for Coloradans" group "part of the establishment." WampaLord posted:Wow, this is super hosed up. I hadn't really followed the Colorado stuff because I don't live there, thanks for this article. Credit goes to Willa, she posted it a few pages back. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think this runs into the problem where you (not necessarily you zp in particular) start defining anyone disagreeing with you as "establishment." Anyone opposing single payer should be primaried, sure. In the case of colorado, the two most recent democratic governors were against it, and were backed up by a number of PACs and staffers from both Clinton's and Obama's camp. He's defining the establishment by the fact that they are the establishment in every conceivable definition of the term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
On the subject of bad Democrats, Baltimore's http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/politics/bs-md-ci-pugh-minimum-wage-20170324-story.html quote:"I don't think they make you swear on the Bible," Pugh said. "They ask you if you would support it, and I do support it. But you ask me as a chief executive officer of this city what I would do as it relates to the conditions of the city currently, and where we are economically, I have a right and responsibility to respond on behalf of all of the citizens of this city." What reminded me of this is what's happening in that city as it's about to get slammed by a snow hurricane. https://twitter.com/BaltimoreBrew/status/948357141420748800 But even though their bodies are freezing, I'm sure that their souls are staying warm knowing that Baltimore's 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The current and former democratic governors of Colorado campaigned against it using bullshit non-arguments like "The constitution is already burdened with too many constitutional measures, let alone one of this cost and magnitude." That’s not great, but it is the responsibility of the campaign in favor of single payer to ensure that either those important potential endorsements either support your measure or stay silent. Or, failing that, that you can counter that endorsement. They can have honest problems with the measure. In a way, it directly mirrors what some people accuse Hillary Clinton of doing, avoiding introspection about her defeat to blame others for her own failing. Blaming others without working to improve your own ideas of campaign techniques does not seem to be a great means of improving the electoral success of similar proposals in the future. Nevvy Z posted:Maybe single payer would be more popular among voters if they weren't being deceived about it by politicians they trust? Majorian posted:And people are pointing out to you that powerful parts of the Democratic machine actively sabotaged it. So...acting like this was a clear bellwether of how voters view single payer is pretty dishonest of you. This is the problem. Single payer healthcare as a political idea can’t fail, it can only be failed. The problem with arguing that single payer is popular or would be without interference from others is that it’s nearly impossible to prove. It depends on the inherent goodness of single payer that would be evident if only people weren’t tricked into believing otherwise. It’s a claim that can’t be disproven, and in any case no one has attempted to prove it. It’s an article of faith. You can be in favor of single payer while realizing that proponents still have work to do to make it widely supported. We should be doing that work instead of complaining when things don’t go our way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
it's a fair criticism, the definition does tend to slip if you don't watch it, while the statement is correct in its specifics here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:This is the problem. Single payer healthcare as a political idea can’t fail, it can only be failed. It's been shown to work pretty drat well when it's been given a chance to succeed. And hasn't been actively sabotaged by those who claim to be in its corner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You can be in favor of single payer while realizing that proponents still have work to do to make it widely supported. We should be doing that work instead of complaining when things don’t go our way. Except that people are complaining that the opposition isn't organic and is in fact being supported by the healthcare industry and people connected to the healthcare industry. This is actually an incredibly important point and not just baseless whining about things not "going our way."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:The problem with arguing that single payer is popular or would be without interference from others is that it’s nearly impossible to prove. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/351928-poll-majority-supports-single-payer-healthcare quote:A slim majority of Americans support a single-payer health-care system that is funded and administrated by the government and eliminates private insurers, according to a new poll. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/americans-dems-support-single-payer-health-care-poll-article-1.3509035 quote:A POLITICO/Morning Consult survey said 49% of general voters support a proposal for a single-payer system, while 35% oppose it and 17% hold no opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You can be in favor of single payer while realizing that proponents still have work to do to make it widely supported. We should be doing that work instead of complaining when things don’t go our way. the cry of the sensible centrist, from now to the heat death of the universe: sit down, shut up, and don't dare ask for better. you must do the work to make your ideas popular. but, you know. without ever doing anything so uncouth as identifying the forces actively working against it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's been shown to work pretty drat well when it's been given a chance to succeed. And hasn't been actively sabotaged by those who claim to be in its corner. I agree with you that it’s a good idea and it’s what the Democrats should be supporting. I disagree with the assertion that people are simply obliged to support it. You have to convince them. Paradoxish posted:Except that people are complaining that the opposition isn't organic and is in fact being supported by the healthcare industry and people connected to the healthcare industry. This is actually an incredibly important point and not just baseless whining about things not "going our way." That people in the private healthcare industry would oppose single payer and try to convince people not to support it is obvious. If you think that they’re not going to oppose something which would drastically harm their profit, you’re naive. The only way to fight that is to be able to counter it with campaigning and information of our own, not complaining that the opposition is doing the obvious. WampaLord posted:http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/351928-poll-majority-supports-single-payer-healthcare That makes the results of the ColoradoCare vote worse. Either voters opposed the measure because it was poorly constructed or conveyed, or because they oppose single payer when actually presented with a specific plan that has drawbacks as well as benefits. Both are concerning. But one thing is inescapable, which is that voters, when presented with a choice, rejected single payer in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I agree with you that it’s a good idea and it’s what the Democrats should be supporting. I disagree with the assertion that people are simply obliged to support it. You have to convince them. you originally took offense to the suggestion that opposition includes the elected officials of the Democratic Party are we conceding, at this point, that the elected officials of the Democratic Party are in fact the Opposition, and must be opposed if we want single payer to happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That people in the private healthcare industry would oppose single payer and try to convince people not to support it is obvious. If you think that they’re not going to oppose something which would drastically harm their profit, you’re naive. The only way to fight that is to be able to counter it with campaigning and information of our own, not complaining that the opposition is doing the obvious. Does it not concern you at all that Obama and Hillary consultants helped the healthcare industry lobby against it? Do you maybe get the point of "The Dems were actively sabotaging the bill" like the thread has been trying to hammer into your thick skull, or are you going to continue to be willfully dense? Democrazy posted:That makes the results of the ColoradoCare vote worse. Either voters opposed the measure because it was poorly constructed or conveyed, or because they oppose single payer when actually presented with a specific plan that has drawbacks as well as benefits. Both are concerning. But one thing is inescapable, which is that voters, when presented with a choice, rejected single payer in Colorado. Or they got filled up with a load of FUD by DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANTS
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
I should've included Trudy Lieberman's great Harper's piece on the ACA in my prior list of links. Lieberman was/is CJR's healthcare-beat reporter and has been covering the ACA for the last decade.quote:It’s bad enough that the A.C.A. is fattening up the health-care industry and hollowing out coverage for the middle class. Even worse, the law is accelerating what I call the Great Cost Shift, which transfers the growing price of medical care to patients themselves through high deductibles, coinsurance (the patient’s share of the cost for a specific service, calculated as a percentage), copayments (a set fee paid for a specific service), and limited provider networks (which sometimes offer so little choice that patients end up seeking out-of-network care and paying on their own). What was once good, comprehensive insurance for a sizable number of Americans is being reduced to coverage for only the most serious, and most expensive, of illnesses. Even fifteen years ago, families paid minimal deductibles of $150 or $200 and copays of $5 or $10, or none at all. Now, a family lucky enough to afford a policy in the first place may face out-of-pocket expenses for coinsurance, deductibles, and copays as high as $13,200 before its insurer kicks in.2 Of course, these out-of-pocket caps can be adjusted by the insurer every year, within limits set by the government, and there are no caps at all for out-of-network services, which means that some providers charge whatever the market will bear. In the post-A.C.A. era, you can be insured but have little or no coverage for what you actually need. eta: She directly links the ACA's imposition of the odiously named "cadillac tax" on comprehensive insurance to the increase in higher out-of-pocket costs: quote:The name suggests that only a select few Americans will be hit by the Cadillac tax. In fact, the impact will be widespread. “It’s going to affect almost every plan as the years go on,” says Steve Wojcik, a vice president at the National Business Group on Health. “I don’t think people know they’re going to be affected.” Eventually, the skin-in-the-game theory of cost control will reach those much higher on the income ladder, bringing us closer still to Pat Rooney’s grand design for health insurance. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
What is "the work" that needs to be done to get single payer passed that is not, in some form, "complaining about it" for the people who are out of power? Should we be stockpiling ak-47s for the revolution instead of pointing out how lovely the current policy and the part of the democratic party that supports it are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That people in the private healthcare industry would oppose single payer and try to convince people not to support it is obvious. If you think that they’re not going to oppose something which would drastically harm their profit, you’re naive. The only way to fight that is to be able to counter it with campaigning and information of our own, not complaining that the opposition is doing the obvious. Democracy in practice is not about honorable political combat between evenly matched forces in an open and free marketplace of ideas. No one is shocked that the healthcare industry is opposed to single payer, but part of actively campaigning for it is to identify the people working against it (which happens to include parts of the Democratic party connected to the healthcare industry) so you can demonstrate that their opposition isn't in good faith. Proving that the thing you want is actually a good idea is only one small part of actually winning any fight and it's absurdly naive to believe otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:you originally took offense to the suggestion that opposition includes the elected officials of the Democratic Party I did not take offense, I asked for elaboration. I take the position that Democratic Party officials are probably necessary endorsements to win, and thus must be convinced. I also take the position that voters aren’t cattle and can also have legitimate concerns to assuage and questions to answer, and that proponents of single payer should be in the business of dong just that. WampaLord posted:Does it not concern you at all that Obama and Hillary consultants helped the healthcare industry lobby against it? Do you maybe get the point of "The Dems were actively sabotaging the bill" like the thread has been trying to hammer into your thick skull, or are you going to continue to be willfully dense? Democratic officials are under no obligation to support something just because you do. You have to convince them to support your side. In my perfect world, they would already support the measure, but this is not a perfect world and I understand that people have different views and perspectives than mine. I try and take those views seriously, address concerns and build consensus around policies I support. Voters rejected the measure. The proponents need to do a better job in the future, plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:What is "the work" that needs to be done to get single payer passed that is not, in some form, "complaining about it" for the people who are out of power? Should we be stockpiling ak-47s for the revolution instead of pointing out how lovely the current policy and the part of the democratic party that supports it are? The bad-dem answer is usually something along the lines of "let's push for a public option," and pretend it would be the market solution to demands for single-payer. eta: Dems also like to pretend that it's up to grass-roots activists--not the elected members of the Dem party who've promised moves toward single-payer--to turn the tide of public sentiment. And when grassroots activists try to do that, they're overwhelmingly thwarted by the combination of powerful industry interests funding Democratic lawmakers and the Dems willingly dancing with the ones who fund their campaigns. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jan 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Democracy in practice is not about honorable political combat between evenly matched forces in an open and free marketplace of ideas. No one is shocked that the healthcare industry is opposed to single payer, but part of actively campaigning for it is to identify the people working against it (which happens to include parts of the Democratic party connected to the healthcare industry) so you can demonstrate that their opposition isn't in good faith. Proving that the thing you want is actually a good idea is only one small part of actually winning any fight and it's absurdly naive to believe otherwise. The assertion that voters were tricked into overwhelmingly opposing something that they would have otherwise supported is an argument of faith. There’s no way to disprove it, and in any case, no one has proven it here. Edit: Overall, I agree with the idea that you have to identify opposition and use it as a campaign tactic is a good one. But to be so overwhelmingly defeated and not wonder how the supporters of single payer might improve their odds next time is staggering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the core conceit of Hamilton isn't bad, but it was better delivered as a climactic line in 1776 As a foreigner who enjoys US history, 'Hamilton' loving baffles me. As Lindsay Ellis said on a review, I guess you need to make the first big hip-hop musical about the whitest poo poo ever. Even so, "I was Washington's aide, elected my worst enemy to the White House, ruined my career over a silly affair, lost my son to a dumb duel then alsl died on a dumber duel: the musical" just feels...off. and I may be mistakenhere, but was Jefferson really that exuberant? He always felt like a borderline Asperger type to me. Give me Thomas Payne: the musical, and then we are talking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
I'm still loving pissed at Anthony Rendon for shelving SB562. Too bad I'm not in his district or I'd have jumped on that recall petition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Edit: Overall, I agree with the idea that you have to identify opposition and use it as a campaign tactic is a good one. But to be so overwhelmingly defeated and not wonder how the supporters of single payer might improve their odds next time is staggering. Well, we certainly know one way to improve their odds, to not have major Democratic consultant firms help the opposition. Democrazy posted:Democratic officials are under no obligation to support something just because you do. You have to convince them to support your side. Jesus loving christ. You're too far gone. There's "no obligation to support" and then there's "actively fighting against" and you're acting like they're the same thing you loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Ben Franklin the musical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:As a foreigner who enjoys US history, 'Hamilton' loving baffles me. As Lindsay Ellis said on a review, I guess you need to make the first big hip-hop musical about the whitest poo poo ever. Thomas Payne: The Musical would be awesome, but even 200+ years later I think he'd still be too radical for American audiences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:So, now that Republicans control the VA legislature, is it better for Northham to expand Medicaid with means testing to appease them (assuming this is an option at all) or to just not expand Medicaid at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 18:54
|
|
