|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Are you a countycare patient? So far I've heard nothing but good things about the medicaid plan that cook county runs, which I'm assuming is why Pritzker promised people that he will support medicaid buy in. No, but I've heard good things about it too. I really hope Pritzker does go thru with his plan.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Again: Bernie's plan for improved and expanded medicare for all is more like an improved & expanded medicaid for all: there are no premiums, no copays and no deductibles. You're right Willa, I was just criticising Medicare, as it is right now for seniors, generalised to the entire population.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Still reeling from that poll where most Americans are like, "UHC wouldn't affect me." I can't write propaganda but I'd love messaging which juxtaposes the complexity of private insurance against something simple like, "yes." Healthcare? Yes. edit: Turns out I didn't see it in this thread. Here it is: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
When "thought leaders" in politics and media scream TAXES BAD and WE CAN'T DO IT on a 24/7 loop it's bound to affect polling. M4A advocates need to do a better job of conveying its benefits, and need to do a better job of countering right-wing tropes no matter which team jersey is yelling them at the moment. But the argument gets easier as private health insurance gets crappier. eta: I'd be interested in at what point that question was asked in the KFF survey--especially whether it was before or after they asked loaded (excuse me, focus) questions like "what if it meant longer wait periods to see physicians?" Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
Well nobody in the US really does preventative care cause it’s expensive to go to the doctor so they don’t go unless there is an emergency. For most people they think it won’t effect them and that 1 out of 4 is sitting on 100,000 dollars of medical bills and is acutely aware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:When "thought leaders" in politics and media scream TAXES BAD and WE CAN'T DO IT on a 24/7 loop it's bound to affect polling. Through my years of reading kaiser health news and looking at the KFF's research it seems clear to me they're the nonprofit advertising arm of kaiser permanente and have a huge bias against universal healthcare. For them, the ACA is as good as it gets and any problems can be handwaved away with tax credits or some other boondoggle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
Literally all they need to say is, “M4A is exactly like private insurance, except it’s free and you won’t get as many denials of coverage.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
19% of uninsured people think m4a would leave them worse off... Can't help some morons, can you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:19% of uninsured people think m4a would leave them worse off... Can't help some morons, can you? To be fair, the amount of corporate propaganda of various forms is colossal. When oligarchs control the mass media, they control the narrative. It's one of the many reasons that I don't watch television and basically practice strategic deafness; it's just a lot of shite and lies trying to get me to buy rubbish I don't need or support ideas that benefit the powerful at the expense of the weak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:When "thought leaders" in politics and media scream TAXES BAD and WE CAN'T DO IT on a 24/7 loop it's bound to affect polling. I mean, I'm pretty skeptical about Medicare for all for the specific reason that Medicare is so bad at paying for transgender care that a bunch of the big transgender care providers won't accept it and expect you to be able to pay cash or provide other coverage. That might not seem like a big deal except that it is the exact sort of thing that I expect the democrats to let fall through the cracks to get support to pass m4a. And my cynicism isn't unsupported; European socialized health care has been a nightmare for trans people with policy makers using gatekeeping and outdated psychology as a way to further marginalize and harass trans patients. On another front, it wasn't that long ago that dems happily dropped trans people from ENDA to try to get it passed. M4a will only be a success, in my eyes, if the people pushing it are simultaneously 100% committed to a detailed plan to make sure Medicare is fixed to meet the needs of minorities as well as it does the needs of old white folks. Socialized medicine can turn health care into a weapon governments can turn on minorities and given the state of our government I'd want ironclad protections for minorities built in so our next trump can't just take away access to health care for whichever minority is on the republican poo poo list that year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
It’s a lot easier to add Trans medicine after the bill has passed than to deal with Tulsi Gabbard voting against it for that reason. Perfect enemy of good etc. As you say, most socialized medicine systems didn’t allow it at first but changed over time. It *will* be poisoned and neutered and used as a weapon by Republicans and nothing we can do can make it “ironclad” - conservatives in countries with socialized medicine continually attack and neuter it, and it needs to be repaired and shored up by subsequent left-wing governments. That is the way of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Perfect is the enemy of the good. But nobody is suggesting we stop at existing medicare for all. Medicare needs to be expanded to include all the services needed but that's an incremental process. I can see the concern at being overlooked but the status quo sucks rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It’s a lot easier to add Trans medicine after the bill has passed than to deal with Tulsi Gabbard voting against it for that reason. Perfect enemy of good etc. As you say, most socialized medicine systems didn’t allow it at first but changed over time. No, gently caress that; Medicare covers trans care now and I'm sure Sanders has no intention of walking back benefits in an improved Medicare for all. His legislation overturns the Hyde amendment, e.g., which imo will face more widespread opposition than trans care. jbt has a valid point, given legislative history like ENDA, and equitable (and improved from the status quo) care shouldn't be handwaved or deferred for the sake of political expediency. Allowing that care to be turned into a cash-only sector and thus only available to those who can afford would be/is horrible. One of the advantages to federalized healthcare is that rules can be set uniformly, as they are for Medicare. Medicaid, e.g., allows each state to decide what's covered, and given that Medicaid is primarily financed by each state comprehensive care is subject to the vagaries of state budgets and political winds. I'm sure activist groups & non-profits will be involved in crafting any legislation, as they should be, and trans care is a legit issue to bring up in advance of any legislation, including during candidates' campaigning and debates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1088869573963722752?s=21 https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1088870203423891456?s=21 https://twitter.com/jstein_wapo/status/1089197980199120897?s=21 Help me out here, it’s common in the business world for totally legitimate charges to be dropped by 99% as soon as journalists and lawyers find out about them right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1088869573963722752?s=21 One of the damning things about people's powerlessness in fighting corporate greed is that they're often told to tweet at the corporations with which they're having problems. Public naming-and-shaming via social media is one of the few ways people can get help, whether it's comcast or zuckerberg general hospital. I'm glad that Kliff, who's pretty much cheerled the ACA for the last decade, is coming to grips with the holes in the system, and I'm particularly glad she's taken on "surprise" medical bills, which affect just about everyone not in a public system like Medicaid, Medicare or the VA. But it's clear that she's desperate for other journos to cover the issue bc she's been absolutely swamped by people asking her to take up the cause. https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1088544788637458437 https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1088545014412644353 https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1088545338602995714 https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1088545744435462144 https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1088546152251838464
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1088869573963722752?s=21 SF general hospital is not a business, its a government owned and run hospital. The employees are government employees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
karthun posted:SF general hospital is not a business, its a government owned and run hospital. The employees are government employees. Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital Use the full name so we can fully embrace the cyberpunk dystopia
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital I gotta say, I for one missed the Kickstarter for CyberZuck 2.0.2.0.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
1. Philanthropic donations upwards of $75 million from famous billionaire benefactor. 2. Cannot provide basic care without systematically financially crippling its patients. 3. ??? 4. Schultz 2020
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Reposting this here because USPOL is mostly the Trump Made A Tweet thread. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/28/18192674/medicare-for-all-cost-jacob-hacker This is a pretty extensive interview with Jacob Hacker, whose work informed the new "Medicare for America" M4A plan. It's one of the plans that has been picking up momentum around the party because it provides universal comprehensive coverage, includes cost controls, but spares private insurance and employer-sponsored plans and has a less "controversial" funding mechanism (that is, it's nicer to donors). This interview is good because Hacker lays out his reasoning pretty clearly without weaseling around, and accurately confronts the realities of upending health care. I think HR 676 is objectively better, but I've been warming to Medicare for America as a not-terrible solution that I would have been legitimately excited about in 2008. quote:No. 3 is you have to be able to finance it. Now, I’m not putting these in order of importance. I once was talking to a seasoned policy expert and he said there are three important things in health care reform: financing, financing, financing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
I love the fact that, no matter what the proposal, nobody but Bernie ever says "Tax the gently caress out of the rich since they took all of their money from working people anyway" I appreciate your rigour, MOOSE, but I am getting very tired of people (not you, but people in general) talking about the unfeasibility of universal health care in this country when far, far less wealthy countries manage to do so very well. I understand that the logistics are challenging and that Big Pharma/Care is going to do everything possible to sabotage it, just to be clear. Thing is, this isn't the USA being in the vanguard about universal health care and trying some brave new "socialist" experiment; this is something that's been proven to work well in dozens of societies with far less resources. I honestly cannot determine if the sceptics out there genuinely don't see how to do this or if they are being deliberately obtuse in order to hide their disdain for so-called communism or to better serve their corporate overlords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Why would anyone want to spare private insurance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:talking about the unfeasibility of universal health care in this country Of those argument, I tend to ignore the size argument the most. Almost everyone lives in a few key areas:  This'd be the perfect time for a, "Yes we can!," if Obama wasn't an '80s Republican. Adenoid Dan posted:Why would anyone want to spare private insurance? "I'm only as rich as my neighbors aren't," types tend to feel they've earned the inferiority of others, get angry when anything threatens the inferiority of others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Reposting this here because USPOL is mostly the Trump Made A Tweet thread. Perfect plan, let's keep healthcare tied to employment 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Why would anyone want to spare private insurance? The only reason anyone would want to spare private insurance is if they or a lot of their constituents make money off of the private insurance industry. Private insurance collects premiums and fights like hell to avoid making any payouts in order to maximize profit. Nobody “likes” their private insurance coverage, they grudgingly tolerate it at best and absolutely hate dealing with the hurdles it purposefully throws at them to deny coverage. It’s an inefficient and unjust method of distributing and rationing healthcare and should be done away with. E: employers also like the private insurance market because they can provide health insurance benefits in lieu of higher pay, and holding the ability to access healthcare over an employee’s head makes it harder for them to quit. Universal health coverage regardless of employment status increases labor mobility and employers don’t like that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:The only reason anyone would want to spare private insurance is if they or a lot of their constituents make money off of the private insurance industry. Employers also have to pay the ridiculous cost of American healthcare out of their own pocket though
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Employers also have to pay the ridiculous cost of American healthcare out of their own pocket though But in exchange, they get a (subsidized, through tax exemptions) way to 1) use the fear of loss of health insurance as an employee retention tool, and 2) make healthcare decisions for their employees (they call it "competing on benefits"). E: Honestly, any MfA single-payer plan should include a requirement that current employer insurance expenditures be rolled over into salaries instead of being recaptured by stakeholders. Probably the maximum expenditure for the previous X years, to avoid employers reducing expenditures to avoid the rollover. Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jan 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I love the fact that, no matter what the proposal, nobody but Bernie ever says "Tax the gently caress out of the rich since they took all of their money from working people anyway" It's this. Also, bribery is legal in American politics and has been for a very long time--and the insurance and medical industries have deep pockets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:The only reason anyone would want to spare private insurance is if they or a lot of their constituents make money off of the private insurance industry. I disagree in the very, very limited sense that very upper class and outright wealthy people are probably, and justifiably, very happy with their healthcare. I'm saying this more to support your position, with which I fully agree, than to argue against it, but American health care is quite possibly the best in the world... for a single-digit percentage of the population, so gently caress them because most of them are libertarians and/or made all of their money stealing wages from working people. Even in health care, America is a country with a lot of incredibly selfish people who still cling to the "disenfranchised millionaire" mindset and are certain that any day they will be millionaires with clones growing in a vat somewhere. Also, even people who are struggling, of which there are tens of millions, love to "punch down" and will gladly suffer terrible health care so long as someone they don't like has none... while not-so-secretly paying for that person's ER visit which is far more expensive than it should be due to a lack of obtainable preventive care and the profit motive. I am an American citizen and I feel that I have every right to say that, while humans are inherently very selfish and spiteful by nature, Americans in general are the worst of the lot among prominent nations. The entire country's culture is based off of using "hard work" (read: manipulation, nepotism and exploiting power) to get into a position where one can look down on everyone else and laugh at their misery for being so lazy while these supposedly workshy parasites work long hours for virtually nothing. As bad as my native Britain is, America always finds a way to lower the bar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Stickman posted:But in exchange, they get a (subsidized, through tax exemptions) way to 1) use the fear of loss of health insurance as an employee retention tool, and 2) make healthcare decisions for their employees (they call it "competing on benefits"). Also don't forget large incumbents get to muscle out startups when it comes to the health issue. It's easy for a big, self insured employer like IBM to offer better cost sharing on health insurance than a plucky startup that has to take its chances on the group market. Individually it's so rational, but taken together it makes American business uncompetitive. Many "third world" countries themselves now have universal healthcare systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:The only reason anyone would want to spare private insurance is if they or a lot of their constituents make money off of the private insurance industry. This is why I believe we still don't have it. Overall, healthcare's immensely profitable. Insurance is a part of that Here, I plugged VGHCX into a portfolio backtester:  ~16%/year since '85 edit: Tens of thousands dying each year. Probably millions living in suffering. All for 16% year. And people think they can't understand human sacrifice Accretionist fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jan 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Also don't forget large incumbents get to muscle out startups when it comes to the health issue. It's easy for a big, self insured employer like IBM to offer better cost sharing on health insurance than a plucky startup that has to take its chances on the group market. Pretty much the story of American capitalism - all suboptimal prisonor's dilemmas because we've bought in to the myth that economic anarchy magically maximizes efficiency and equity of resource distribution. (Maybe "sold the lie" is a better way to put it)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Reposting this here because USPOL is mostly the Trump Made A Tweet thread. It's better than the ACA but would still impose high costs on lower-income workers: quote:Medicare for America offers a simple, transparent cost structure. Individuals will have a $350 deductible and $3,500 maximum out-of-pocket spending. For households, their deductible will be $500 and $5,000 maximum out-of-pocket spending. Medicare for America also ensures coverage is affordable for all by capping individual and household premiums at 9.69 percent of their monthly income. Individuals or families making less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will not pay a premium, have to meet a deductible, or have a maximum out-of-pocket spending. Individuals or families between 200 percent and 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will receive subsidies to lower their contribution to the premium. For someone making $26,000/year, that would mean around $2500/year in premiums + $3850/year in out-of-pocket costs, or closer to 20 percent of their gross income in medical costs. That would be a serious burden on those living in cities and paying housing and/or paying off student loans, just as current costs under the ACA are back-breaking for all but the wealthy and those covered by Medicaid. In addition, what Hacker and the Congressional press release leave unsaid: * Will there be a mandate for individuals as well as employers? * If one is preserving private insurers, then the continuation of ultra-narrow-networks continues. Yet there's no mention of outlawing balance/surprise billing for private insurance plans, which is the top concern coming up in polls about healthcare among voters. * Are prescription drugs under Medicare for Some subject to the same deductible as other kinds of care, or is this an additional cost to consumers? Will this bill call for reimportation of drugs from other countries or other price controls on pharma? * The tax deduction for employers/employees is the single largest drain on the U.S. Treasury among all deductions, around $900 billion/year. Combined with the hundreds of billions of dollars paid by the feds to private insurers under the ACA, and to administer Medicaid and Medicare, how would a single-payer system like Sanders' shake out financing-wise without these subsidies that are now given to private insurers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's better than the ACA but would still impose high costs on lower-income workers: I might as well have that bullshit catastrophic coverage because it's not like I can afford any medical treatment after the $400 I pay to BCBS's profits each month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
High out-of-pocket costs are effective; they discourage people from seeking healthcare, which is exactly what was intended by the insurance lobbyists who helped craft the ACA. Slightly lower out-of-pocket costs under Medicare for Some would be slightly better, but not by much. That said, there is someone proposing to eliminate the OOP bullshit, but he hasn't yet announced that he's running in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
So my friend said TurboTax is telling him that using the exchange hosed him. He had 4 months of unemployment with exchange healthcare, then 8 months employed. It calculated his subsidy based on the whole year AGI, so all subsidies he got have to be repaid in full - about 2 grand. For earning income when he wasn't receiving the health insurance since he had private in that period What a loving mess
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So my friend said TurboTax is telling him that using the exchange hosed him. He had 4 months of unemployment with exchange healthcare, then 8 months employed. It calculated his subsidy based on the whole year AGI, so all subsidies he got have to be repaid in full - about 2 grand. For earning income when he wasn't receiving the health insurance since he had private in that period The democrats!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Good news for those who didn't have insurance last year and who don't want to pay the mandate penalty: You still have to file Form 8965 with your 2018 taxes, but according to the instructions for the form (see p. 3), if you claim "general hardship" you do not have to provide proof of that hardship, nor send away for an exemption number before filing your taxes. Just put the letter G in the line item on 8965 for each month you didn't carry insurance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Good news for those who didn't have insurance last year and who don't want to pay the mandate penalty: You still have to file Form 8965 with your 2018 taxes, but according to the instructions for the form (see p. 3), if you claim "general hardship" you do not have to provide proof of that hardship, nor send away for an exemption number before filing your taxes. Just put the letter G in the line item on 8965 for each month you didn't carry insurance. Of course given the IRS let people "decline to answer" about having health insurance for a bit only to go back and demand an answer from the folks that picked that later on, MIGHT want to be a little careful trying that if you don't actually have any of the hardship reasons. The IRS does have three years to generally raise complaints so it's not like you're in the clear if they don't bug you in the year you file. Won't have to hold up filing to apply for an exemption under that rule (though usually you could write "Pending" for the exemption certificate # and send both in at once anyway as I recall), but you still want to make the application as well as filing the taxes I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
MadDogMike posted:Of course given the IRS let people "decline to answer" about having health insurance for a bit only to go back and demand an answer from the folks that picked that later on, MIGHT want to be a little careful trying that if you don't actually have any of the hardship reasons. The IRS does have three years to generally raise complaints so it's not like you're in the clear if they don't bug you in the year you file. Won't have to hold up filing to apply for an exemption under that rule (though usually you could write "Pending" for the exemption certificate # and send both in at once anyway as I recall), but you still want to make the application as well as filing the taxes I think. According to the instructions, you only have to formally file for an exemption for a handful of situations but I agree about keeping records. I came across that while helping someone who had medical bills last year that came to half her gross income, and I told her to keep her medical receipts with her taxes if she's gonna use the exemption form just in case they ever contest. On the other hand, it was p. easy to get the exemption when you filed for it even under Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 04:58
|
|