Halloween Jack posted:Devoted centrist shitheads make up a very visible fraction of celebrity talk show hosts and non-celebrity Twitter users which can really skew your perceptions if you're Online. Let me try to present this in a different way. The left end goal is to pass reforms such that healthcare becomes more affordable. This would likely entail the per capital healthcare spending of ~10k coming down to ~5k. Or the % of our economy spent on healthcare as percentage of GDP from 20% to 10%. This is all good and the right thing to do. But there are many people that currently profit on a broken system. This includes med schools, doctors/HCPs, office staff, pharma, med device companies, insurance, and investors in these industries. We don't have to be sympathetic to their plight, but healthcare is a massive industry that employs many people. M4A is actually proposed and negative repurcussions become a reality to millions of people that personally benefit from status quo. Is the left that confident that fewer people won't flip and oppose Democratic Party efforts vs. votes gained from this policy alone? I'm not arguing against the policy in the least or it shouldn't be attempted. But I think it's not going to be an easy ride regardless what the current positive bipartisan polling says. Keep in mind that Obamacare was *hated* by a large percentage of the population not because it was a bad plan that did nothing to contain costs, but that it was a perceived government takeover / freedom killer and gave people healthcare they didn't deserve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Let me try to present this in a different way. The left end goal is to pass reforms such that healthcare becomes more affordable. This would likely entail the per capital healthcare spending of ~10k coming down to ~5k. Or the % of our economy spent on healthcare as percentage of GDP from 20% to 10%. This is all good and the right thing to do. lol no you're beyond helping The end goal of leftism is the end of capitalism, to a greater or lesser degree. Some of us want big government Marxist-Leninism, some of us want weed smoking communes, but all of us start with "gently caress capital" and get more pedantic from there. I don't want better healthcare insurance, I want universal healthcare no matter what, rich poor citizen or even cisgender. More doctors than not support UHC. Obamacare was bad because it wasn't UHC. We know how to fix this, and it's not the market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Let me try to present this in a different way. The left end goal is to pass reforms such that healthcare becomes more affordable. quote:But there are many people that currently profit on a broken system. This includes med schools, doctors/HCPs, office staff, pharma, med device companies, insurance, and investors in these industries. We don't have to be sympathetic to their plight, but healthcare is a massive industry that employs many people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Ah yes, you say you want universal basic income, but what of the jobs in the payday loan industry??
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
For the record, I've worked in public healthcare doing transgender care coordination with Medicaid. It was a hellish mess, but nothing compared to trying to get private insurance to cover poo poo. I'd rather have Medicaid For All than the current system. My friend's parents run their own health clinic, and both support UHC, Universal income, and government housing. In short, get hosed and go get dommed by Trump like you clearly want to, KingNastidon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Let me try to present this in a different way. The left end goal is to pass reforms such that healthcare becomes more affordable. This would likely entail the per capital healthcare spending of ~10k coming down to ~5k. Or the % of our economy spent on healthcare as percentage of GDP from 20% to 10%. This is all good and the right thing to do. This is the post of a liberal capitalist, not a leftist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:For someone lecturing the Left for our opposition to liberalism, you appear to be utterly ignorant of the difference between us in the first place. What’s funny too is that DSA M4A sent people, including Amber, to the UK to meet w NHS advocates and officials, etc. They know what they’re up against and are planning for it. They know that they’re looking to take on an entire industry (health insurance) and will need jobs programs, training programs, etc to handle this monumental shift. Reform nothing, they’re talking about an economic and health revolution in the US. Consider your small minded goals and ask why you don’t think bigger. Incrementalism will not save you. Clarification: You = KingNasty
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:20
|
|
T-man posted:lol no you're beyond helping I don't care what you personally want in a country with 100M+ voters. I generally want the same end goal, for what it's worth. I'm asking whether you're that confident that >=50% of the voting population will give the Democratic Party their support to pass an immediate, significant restructuring of our healthcare system when faced with real world upsides/downsides. And if you're not 100% confident, which seems reasonable enough given 2010 elections following Obamacare, whether there are other acceptable incremental approaches you'd accept that could eventually get to the same end goal with broader popular support. For example, lowering Medicare age to 50 or 40. Again, not saying that's my policy or moral ideal but I'd argue the majority of the population and even Democrats do not hold your "gently caress capital" stances in 2018.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't care what you personally want in a country with 100M+ voters. I generally want the same end goal, for what it's worth. I'm asking whether you're that confident that >=50% of the voting population will give the Democratic Party their support to pass an immediate, significant restructuring of our healthcare system when faced with real world upsides/downsides. And if you're not 100% confident, which seems reasonable enough given 2010 elections following Obamacare, whether there are other acceptable incremental approaches you'd accept that could eventually get to the same end goal with broader popular support. just... stop
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't care what you personally want in a country with 100M+ voters. I generally want the same end goal, for what it's worth. I'm asking whether you're that confident that >=50% of the voting population will give the Democratic Party their support to pass an immediate, significant restructuring of our healthcare system when faced with real world upsides/downsides. And if you're not 100% confident, which seems reasonable enough given 2010 elections following Obamacare, whether there are other acceptable incremental approaches you'd accept that could eventually get to the same end goal with broader popular support. if you give everyone free healthcare they will vociferously defend it within a year or two. they certainly aren't going to vote for anyone who says they'll take it away also stop loving posting, christ
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't care what you personally want in a country with 100M+ voters. I generally want the same end goal, for what it's worth. I'm asking whether you're that confident that >=50% of the voting population will give the Democratic Party their support to pass an immediate, significant restructuring of our healthcare system when faced with real world upsides/downsides. And if you're not 100% confident, which seems reasonable enough given 2010 elections following Obamacare, whether there are other acceptable incremental approaches you'd accept that could eventually get to the same end goal with broader popular support. I think you meant to post this in the Joe Rogan thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
do you even listen to chapo or were you just called psychically by your hillary/obama gently caress fantasies
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
These pragmatic negotiating tactics libs use are dogshit. You don't come to the table with a poo poo ask like lowering the age of Medicare. How do you expect voters to give a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Libs are just trying to hide that the future they want is Starship Troopers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Nobody is going to roll out of bed to go vote for some milquetoast bullshit. Nobody's gonna brave the active disenfranchisement and police intimidation to pull the lever for "gently caress me 3% less, please".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:39
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:For someone lecturing the Left for our opposition to liberalism, you appear to be utterly ignorant of the difference between us in the first place. Yes, I work in healthcare. My experience working in healthcare has also made me more supportive of universal healthcare and single payer. MDs and office staff do find multiple private payers tedious and annoying. But there are also certain procedures or classes of therapies, such as newer in-patient immunotherapies, that are largely off limits to Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates to MDs and institutions are insufficient relative to private/commercial insurance. https://www.biospace.com/article/does-car-t-therapy-have-a-payment-problem-/ https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/cms-approves-extra-payments-for-car-t-increases-other-payments-in-final-rule https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1807382 Ignoring MDs and instituons, the cost savings will most directly hit insurance/pharma profits. This isn't a bad thing, of course, but there are millions of voters whose livelihoods are tied to these industries. That's not reason to maintain status quo, similar to military spending, I'm just questioning the real world popularity, and if it does become an issue, what alternatives are acceptable in the short term.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
i'm not questioning the real world popularity of your posting
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't care what you personally want in a country with 100M+ voters. I generally want the same end goal, for what it's worth. I'm asking whether you're that confident that >=50% of the voting population will give the Democratic Party their support to pass an immediate, significant restructuring of our healthcare system when faced with real world upsides/downsides. And if you're not 100% confident, which seems reasonable enough given 2010 elections following Obamacare, whether there are other acceptable incremental approaches you'd accept that could eventually get to the same end goal with broader popular support. Stringent posted:Wait, you mean "I care more about my odds of reelection than your access to healthcare." isn't a rallying cry?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:50
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Nobody is going to roll out of bed to go vote for some milquetoast bullshit. Lowering the age of Medicare to 40 or 50 isn't that milquetoast to people over the age of 40 or 50 that would benefit from it. While Medicare for All should be the initial proposal and ideal end goal, push comes to shove you'd vote against the temporary half measure (which is still beneficial) to maintain the status quo? Why?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
All of those insurance people could probably shift to running the national health service with very little chafing, and pharma mil/billionaires are an easy target to punch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
To top it off they would still be painted as socialists for even mild Medicare expansion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:54
|
|
yorkinshire posted:To top it off they would still be painted as socialists for even mild Medicare expansion. Right. And let's say for various reasons you're unable to convince the neceasary centrist Dems to go for full M4A. You'd rather not compromise on a halfway measure, maintain the status quo without helping anyone, and hope 6+ years down the road that things will change for the better? Do you think the scenario above playing out is impossible?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
absolutely nobody who would vote for a lower age for Medicare would refuse to vote for Medicare For AllKingNastidon posted:Right. And let's say for various reasons you're unable to convince the neceasary centrist Dems to go for full M4A. You'd rather not compromise on a halfway measure, maintain the status quo without helping anyone, and hope 6+ years down the road that things will change for the better? we are ten years down the road from obamacare and things have gotten worse from there, largely in part because democrats can't hold onto power because they don't do anything that people actually like when they have power
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Right. And let's say for various reasons you're unable to convince the neceasary centrist Dems to go for full M4A. You'd rather not compromise on a halfway measure, maintain the status quo without helping anyone, and hope 6+ years down the road that things will change for the better? Since you keep ignoring everyone calling you out on ideological grounds, do you also ignore the part of the show where they’re constantly talking about “the boiling seawater?” Whatever game of chess you think you’re playing at the end of history in your head is not going to survive the material reality of 6 more years of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Yes, I work in healthcare. My experience working in healthcare has also made me more supportive of universal healthcare and single payer. MDs and office staff do find multiple private payers tedious and annoying. But there are also certain procedures or classes of therapies, such as newer in-patient immunotherapies, that are largely off limits to Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates to MDs and institutions are insufficient relative to private/commercial insurance. Maybe single-payer could be more efficient, since the profit incentive is 0, there's far less people involved, and the buyer (us government) can regulate prices and research more directly? Most new advances come from basic research, which is unprofitable to do. But if the government values research advances, and it does, directly giving to scientists to do basic and not instantly applicable research is how we can rah rah defeat China or whatever. Markets make profit, not goods. Might I suggest Chapo Trap House as a good starting point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
While homey's worrying about being called a socialist: https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-creates-policy-time-donald-trump-work-tweeting-executive-time-1213354
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:absolutely nobody who would vote for a lower age for Medicare would refuse to vote for Medicare For All And they don’t do anything that people actually like when they have power because they think exactly like kingnasty and believe their constituents don’t actually want nice things E: I mean for fucks sake just listen to today’s Chapo, a bunch of left-leaning ballot measures like expanding Medicaid and felon re-enfranchisement absolutely creamed the democratic candidates on the same ballot, why do you think that happened exactly Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:46
|
|
T-man posted:Maybe single-payer could be more efficient, since the profit incentive is 0, there's far less people involved, and the buyer (us government) can regulate prices and research more directly? Most new advances come from basic research, which is unprofitable to do. But if the government values research advances, and it does, directly giving to scientists to do basic and not instantly applicable research is how we can rah rah defeat China or whatever. Markets make profit, not goods. Might I suggest Chapo Trap House as a good starting point? Wow, thanks for the overview on the merits of single payer healthcare. Given my repeated professed personal support for M4A, I totally wasn't aware there could be cost savings realized from for-profit insurance companies, PBMs, and inflated drug/HCP costs that could be returned to citizens and/or redirected to non-profit activities such as government funded R&D. But there are millions of citizens and a lot of political money that benefit from the status quo. Assuming our shared ideal policy of M4A can't be realized because such immediate change results in selfish Democrats voters or not having presidency, house majority, and 60 (or 50/51 I suppose) seats in the Senate, is there *anything* other than your ideal you're willing to accept in the short term until those conditions are realized? You can't seem to distinguish between what you personally think should be done and advocated for vs. discussing how you'd react to reasonably possible scenario given the vast majority of Democrats and general voters are to the right of you. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:And they don’t do anything that people actually like when they have power because they think exactly like kingnasty and believe their constituents don’t actually want nice things The electorate's distaste for actual socialist policy is a myth created by the neo-libs and sold via the New York Times and Washington Post. It has no basis in fact or reality, and has never been more than a grift for their donors. 2016 proved this conclusively, and it's only going to get clearer. As long as these anemic puddles of jellyfish poo poo continue toting pencils to gun fights they're just gonna continue to get slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
This thing you all agree is good (and I even agree is good!) couldn't possibly be accepted by the unenlightened craven masses let's just make it suck
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
moot the hopple posted:This thing you all agree is good (and I even agree is good!) couldn't possibly be accepted by the unenlightened craven masses let's just make it suck Nice to meet you Mr. President, can I smoke weed with you and Michelle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Wow, thanks for the overview on the merits of single payer healthcare. Given my repeated professed personal support for M4A, I totally wasn't aware there could be cost savings realized from for-profit insurance companies, PBMs, and inflated drug/HCP costs that could be returned to citizens and/or redirected to non-profit activities such as government funded R&D. What things are the Democratic party not doing that you think they should? Everything you're describing is exactly what they've advocated for decades, but somehow they have failed to hold onto any power
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
and when your answer is "people in the US are just racist," then you can move on to explaining to me what it is about Americans that makes them this way compared to people in the other richest nations in the world
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
We've status quo'd our way into this mess, and by god we'll status quo our way out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:and when your answer is "people in the US are just racist," then you can move on to explaining to me what it is about Americans that makes them this way compared to people in the other richest nations in the world Can't it be both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:33
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:What things are the Democratic party not doing that you think they should? Everything you're describing is exactly what they've advocated for decades, but somehow they have failed to hold onto any power Advocating for their left/progressive policies in a more aggressive, populist way to draw a clearer distinction vs. Republicans. I think they're getting better, but feel there's always line between what they should be doing vs. what's electorally popular at any given moment. This line continues to move left in many respects, from LGBTQ rights to corporate campaign funding to healthcare. I worry that M4A might not quite be there yet. There hasn't been any legislative proposals or votes to find out. You could easily point to broad bipartisan support in polls, but I don't believe chuds are going to abandon republicans and republican politicians aren't moving leftward on healthcare. I'm trying to understand if anyone feels there are incremental measures that the left would tolerate in the short-term or if such proposals are actually unnecessary / counterproductive vs. status quo. Seems like the consensus here is the latter. Even asking that question makes one a PSA corporatist lib or Trump lover, so hasn't been very productive.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:what's electorally popular at any given moment. See, this is your problem, this right here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Seems like the consensus here is the latter. Even asking that question makes one a PSA corporatist lib or Trump lover, so hasn't been very productive. Asking leftists to settle for incremental measures on healthcare at this point is like asking lgbtq activists to settle for civil unions in 2015 because the Deep South Bible Belt just isn’t ready for full gay marriage yet. Nope, not gonna happen, go gently caress yourself. Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
prefect posted:Also, Will might have said "nucular", but I'm not going back to check. I heard it too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:05 |
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Asking leftists to settle for incremental measures on healthcare at this point is like asking lgbtq activists to settle for civil unions in 2015 because the Deep South Bible Belt just isn’t ready for full gay marriage yet. Yet...both Obama and Hillary were unable to come out in support of gay marriage in 2008. But their presidency likely moved that issue more to the left than a Republican president would have. So it's completely unimaginable that a similar situation could occur with a Democratic president/congress in 2020/2022/2024 in regards to M4A. And being unwilling to consider that scenario and how you'll react -- and instead just resort to telling people to go gently caress themselves isn't great.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 02:02
|
|