|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Medicare has cost sharing Bernie's proposal for M4A doesn't have cost-sharing.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Bernie's proposal for M4A doesn't have cost-sharing. I know, but the post I was replying to was talking about what we have now Bernie’s plan is about as good as you can get without nationalizing the hospitals, but I still think we should nationalize the hospitals
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Of course, Trump isn't actually a fascist - since he has no coherent ideology besides whatever he thinks is best for him this morning - he's just content to surround himself with fascists and embrace their talking points to maintain his cult of personality. In that sense, we're lucky, because a more competent right-wing populist would've already gotten farther than this last year. fascism isn't a coherent ideology. that's part of the appeal
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:there are no good republicans. Eisenhower (?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
Cable Guy posted:Lincoln... budd dwyer
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 11:11
|
|
|
I missed a beat somewhere, when did Medicare Extra become Medicare Extra for All? That's such hilarious and blatant brand-stealing. "Look, we're lovely, terrible Medicare for All too! Anyway, I actually ran into a decent blog post on medium.com, about the intellectual vacuum that is the modern conservative movement. Of course wonks are sharing this and going "ha ha the conservatives are dumb", which is kind of missing the point, which to me is that (referring back to the "why do Democrats always have unpopular, painstakingly detailed policy programs to please budget hawk pundits") you don't need a creaking think-tank heart beating at the core of your politics. Sure, the Heritage Foundation laundry list might not be passing as-is, but they have the Supreme Court, they have their tax cuts, they have their healthcare cuts, they have their deportations, they'll have their wars, and they never needed the Heritage Foundation to get there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Like there's any actual intellect behind modern liberal wonks either lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Medicare has cost sharing Eh, partial cost sharing for some services. A lot of things are just covered, or covered with a minor copay, etc. going by https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html The new proposal, going by that post, appears to be "government covers 80%", which if applied across the board could be a big cut in services. Is that for Part A, or just Part B, or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Cable Guy posted:Lincoln... both prior to the realignment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Seems like 80% is if you are making over 500% poverty level. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2018/02/22/447095/medicare-extra-for-all/ For families with income up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), premiums would be zero.9 For families with income between 150 percent and 500 percent of FPL, caps on premiums would range from 0 percent to 10 percent of income. For families with income above 500 percent of FPL, premiums would be capped at 10 percent of income. The average share of costs covered by the plan, or “actuarial value,” would also vary by income. For individuals with income below 150 percent of FPL, the actuarial value would be 100 percent—meaning these individuals would face zero out-of-pocket costs. The actuarial value would range from 100 percent to 80 percent for families with middle incomes or higher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Seems like 80% is if you are making over 500% poverty level. That's cost of premiums, not "cost sharing," i.e, "the hospital billed us at $100,000 per day, you were there three days, we only have to pay 20% of that, now we have to sell the house." From what I can tell so far it seems like this is something that the current "Medicare Extra" proposal is vague on; it seem to be implying that it's mostly talking about Medicare Part B (which currently has a 20% or so "cost sharing", speaking roughly), but there's a lack of clarity on what it would do to Medicare Part A (which covers hospital stays almost entirely, after a deductible).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
how about we make it so you pay nothing when you receive healthcare.
Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's cost of premiums, not "cost sharing," i.e, "the hospital billed us at $100,000 per day, you were there three days, we only have to pay 20% of that, now we have to sell the house." The stuff it says explicitly about cost: "Medicare Extra would provide comprehensive benefits, including free preventive care, free treatment for chronic disease, and free generic drugs. " and "The average share of costs covered by the plan, or “actuarial value,” would also vary by income. For individuals with income below 150 percent of FPL, the actuarial value would be 100 percent—meaning these individuals would face zero out-of-pocket costs. The actuarial value would range from 100 percent to 80 percent for families with middle incomes or higher."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
That means tested wonky bullshit is why people will reject it. Why should only the poors enjoy 100% cost sharing and not everyone else? Even if they set the standard at 90AV it would still outrageously high levels of cost sharing. My 90AV employer plan still has a $350 deductible and $3,350 out of pocket max.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The stuff it says explicitly about cost: RIght, but it's vague over whether that calc includes Part A or just Part B. If it includes Part A, that's going to be a dramatic increase in out of pocket costs for everyone above 150 FPL. On the other hand, if it could be an expansion of coverage vs. current cost sharing requirements, depending on what's covered. Health care policy is a ratchet; it's much harder to reduce coverage than expand it, so incremental gains are good, so long as they're genuine gains and not disguised cuts. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Congratulations to the Guardian on enabling Hitler's rise to power. https://twitter.com/guardian/status/978922043948371969
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:One would think those policies, like literally every other policy, face a combination of structural advantages and disadvantages. Like they're proportedly very popular among the democratic electorate-- that's an advantage! And yet you seem certain that they cannot win elections. Which policies are you talking about, specifically? Because the policies that I'm talking about, like M4A, are extremely popular among the Democratic base, and are also popular among the general electorate. The reason why establishment Democrats do not push for them is because of the structural barriers that exist to block actually progressive legislation from making it onto the ballot. quote:More to the point, the structural disadvantages that these policies face do not disappear once the general election comes around. The idea that structural opposition to leftist policy exists entirely or even predominantly within the democratic party is extremely broke-brained. Not something anyone here argued.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Im.o places where a lot of young white liberals and techbros are moving are superficially liberal but bristle the moment something concrete is offered. All my friends who moved to colorado are obama/hillary voters and all of them voted against coloradocare in the last election, for example. I’m quite sure these people aren’t real friends. You’re much better off associating with better people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/979052724196184064 How do we go about grinding these NIMBY assholes into dust?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Congratulations to the Guardian on enabling Hitler's rise to power. looking this guy up, he's already very right wing the guardian wants "centrists" to work with parties even further to the right than him? this dude wants to reduce the deficit, hangs out with netanyahu, privatized a bunch of poo poo, and pushed legislation defending "traditional marriage" he should be the centrist wet-dream
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:fascism isn't a coherent ideology. that's part of the appeal Well, ok, but Trump doesn’t even manage to get as far as having a contradictory ideology based on hating the Other. He’s just interested in himself. Edit: lol the fascists keep own-goaling. http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/03/27/alt-right-erupts-after-crying-nazi-christopher-cantwell-admits-hes-a-federal-informant/ Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Javes posted:https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/979052724196184064 lmao it’s literally in the Home Depot’s parking lot
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:looking this guy up, he's already very right wing It's a clickable link, you can read the article. It's saying that if the guy in power stays in power there might not be another real election after this one, and that there is no viable candidate running against him except another right wing guy who is around 50% of the possible vote. So you would be better voting for that guy and taking a bad couple years over a guy that might literally end democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a clickable link, you can read the article. Yeah, because the literal neonazi party is sure to respect democracy once they're in power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a clickable link, you can read the article. Holy gently caress you have no idea about Jobbik, do you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a clickable link, you can read the article. Centrism is a brain disease
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a clickable link, you can read the article.  another even more right wing guy you mean. who would be even more likely to end democracy you don't side with neonazis to fight the right, and i'm kinda freaked out you even have to be told that 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
I buy strategic voting as a viable option at times compared to constant futile struggle. Assuming 'the right' is some monolithic group in Hungary may be in error. I don't know enough of the particular facts, but in an illiberal democracy, being in power is how you get entrenched enough to kill the pesky democracy part. It doesn't seem ridiculous that switching between two rivals, even if both are totalitarian, can stave that off. That being said, from what little research I did do...Goddamn, nativism is a helluva drug these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:I buy strategic voting as a viable option at times compared to constant futile struggle. voting nazis into power is never a viable strategy 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
quote:“I think now is the time to assess...how many quote:"Hungary is preparing for two huge
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, because the literal neonazi party is sure to respect democracy once they're in power. They won't respect anything, they won't have the party numbers to enact the stuff the majority party guy would have either. They aren't electing a king. (unless the guy who has enough votes to push constitutional changes wins, then they are)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They won't respect anything, they won't have the party numbers to enact the stuff the majority party guy would have either. They aren't electing a king. (unless the guy who has enough votes to push constitutional changes wins, then they are) They. Are. Literally. Nazis. Get your brainworms checked. Far-Right Mayor In Hungary Cracks Down On Roma
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They won't respect anything, they won't have the party numbers to enact the stuff the majority party guy would have either. They aren't electing a king. (unless the guy who has enough votes to push constitutional changes wins, then they are) oh so they're harmless nazis 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Voting for Nazis to own the ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:They. Are. Literally. Nazis. Yeah, they should really vote those guys out next time there is an election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, they should really vote those guys out next time there is an election. how about literal armed resistance instead of giving power to nazis?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:voting nazis into power is never a viable strategy Well, that's some strong moral clarity at least. I can't tell if it's short-circuiting any examination of efficacy is a bug or a future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, they should really vote those guys out next time there is an election. lol go hug a nazi
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how about literal armed resistance instead of giving power to nazis? I mean they have a "don't have democracy" party too, and you can vote for them instead but then you still get a far right government out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean they have a "don't have democracy" party too, and you can vote for them instead but then you still get a far right government out of it. how about not voting for right-wing parties? did that ever cross your mind?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:37
|
|