• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

The status quo can also be quite disruptive.

The “simplest” plan I heard was Gillibrand on PSA. Buy into Medicare with 3-4% of your income as Medicare covers everyone over four years. I’d extend that period but whatever.
 
If I understand what you're saying, yea that's fairly straightforward. Medicare already exists and most folks already pay into it.

Still a long ways to go after that, but it would be a fairly easy mechanism to utilize, I'd think.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The UK instituted socialized medicine in 1948 when the complexity and cost of doing so little bit different than it would be today. Plus I wouldn't be transitioning from a completely employer-based system primarily to that. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
The same was true for Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, and so on. No one is arguing that it would be simple, just that its necessary and inevitable.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The same was true for Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, and so on. No one is arguing that it would be simple, just that its necessary and inevitable.
Click to expand...
Medicare was established in 1966. And of course it isn't necessary or inevitable since most of the first world has universal coverage but not single payer
 
ChrisL68 said:
Medicare was established in 1966. And of course it isn't necessary or inevitable since most of the first world has universal coverage but not single payer
Click to expand...
We're not most of the world, you established that yourself. Our private health insurance industry is nothing like the industries of the nordic countries or Germany. Those insurance companies are non-profit, heavily subsidized, and don't compete with socialized care. You cant complain about the ACA in one post and come right back and say you want to emulate other countries with effectively neutered health insurance industries.
 
Oh we definitely can't get rid of private health insurance, but we can make it revenue neutral and non-competitive. Sure. You centrists are in love with subsidized market solutions, damn the inefficiencies, vulture capitalism, and economic disasters that follow.
 
Cant wait to fill out my first healthcare fafsa and see what scholarships I qualify for.
 
And vision? And long-term care and residential hospice care? And burial/cremation insurance?

Actually, I'd favor all of this being mandatory.

And folks can pay beyond for extra if they want and are able.
 
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain said:
your plan is to create policy that radically transforms an entire sector of our economy without input from that sector and expect that plant to succeed

wheeeeeeeeeeeee
Click to expand...

Maybe this has been address already (I haven't read to the end of thread), but I completely disagree with this sarcastic take. If you want to transform a system to do whats best for the public, you don't need to bring to the table the select group of people that are profiting enormously off the status quo. They have a vested interest in as little change as possible. Halliburton doesn't get to help decide how we transform the energy sector away from oil field exploration and drilling, just like BCBS doesn't need to have a say in how we re-imagine health care delivery.
 
Exactly. On top of that, probably 25% of private health insurance employees will transition working for Medicare. Plus they got these people called "consultants" to help out, so lets not pretend we need to be game planning with Aetna or something.

Regarding the polling data about M4A, here is AOCs "policy guy"
 
I actually think that there will still be a lot of people who will buy/use private insurance, as long as the option remains on the table. This reminds me a bit of the debate around whether there should be a constitutional right to counsel in criminal/civil litigation. Critics who dismiss the idea of a civil right to counsel using similar justifications as those used on the last few pages of this thread rarely look at how the "right" is actually utilized in a criminal context. Having "universal access to an attorney" co-exists with a robust private defense bar. This is because if you're rich, then there is no way in hell that you will use court-appointed counsel. Anyway, carry on.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Exactly. On top of that, probably 25% of private health insurance employees will transition working for Medicare. Plus they got these people called "consultants" to help out, so lets not pretend we need to be game planning with Aetna or something.

Regarding the polling data about M4A, here is AOCs "policy guy"
Click to expand...

I mean, it's also just a fundamental insight about how polling and survey data work (and the limitations of using polling and survey data as a proxy for perceptions on policy issues).
 
Strickland33 said:
I actually think that there will still be a lot of people who will buy/use private insurance, as long as the option remains on the table. This reminds me a bit of the debate around whether there should be a constitutional right to counsel in criminal/civil litigation. Critics who dismiss the idea of a civil right to counsel using similar justifications as those used on the last few pages of this thread rarely look at how the "right" is actually utilized in a criminal context. Having "universal access to an attorney" co-exists with a robust private defense bar. This is because if you're rich, then there is no way in hell that you will use court-appointed counsel. Anyway, carry on.
Click to expand...

There will definitely be people seeking their own additional insurance and health care options. There are already "concierge" doctors that cater to Medicare recipients. You pay them a few thousand a year and they are on call for you all the time. They don't work with medicare, they take your cash and become your primary care physician, then if you need more specialized treatment they refer and medicare takes over. My parents have one of these deals set up.
 
birdman said:
Maybe this has been address already (I haven't read to the end of thread), but I completely disagree with this sarcastic take. If you want to transform a system to do whats best for the public, you don't need to bring to the table the select group of people that are profiting enormously off the status quo. They have a vested interest in as little change as possible. Halliburton doesn't get to help decide how we transform the energy sector away from oil field exploration and drilling, just like BCBS doesn't need to have a say in how we re-imagine health care delivery.
Click to expand...

I too would prefer some type of single payer system. But what we're doing now in debating M4A has little place in the actual world because it has no chance of passing in the foreseeable future. There is absolutely zero Pub support for M4A at this time (hell, they're hell bent against the mandate, which was supposed to help control costs), and they control the senate now and will likely control it after 2020. Even if the Dems get it in 2022, we won't have a filibuster proof majority. So the best that we can hope for in the near term is to patch up the ACA and hopefully find some better way to control costs. Dem candidates can savage each other to their hearts content over the next year and a half debating what M4A really means and how much it will cost. It's just not happening in our next president's term. Maybe the best thing about M4A is that we're at least openly talking about a single payer delivery system, which is a baby step in the right direction.

The other thing I'd say is that, until we do finally adopt a single payer system, yes, the insurance industry has a seat at the table. Back in the 70s and 80s when I was a kid, when congress was considering legislation, they'd bring in the groups representing the affected industries and consumers and hold hearings. But 2 years ago, the only group the Pub congress spoke with concerning their proposed legislation was the insurance industry, not the AMA, and AHA or consumer groups. And hell, they even excluded the insurance industry on their last try, and even the insurance industry came out against their last bill because of their block grant to states proposal. So until we're actually proposing to pass some kind of single payer system, yeah, they get a seat at the table along with the AMA, AHA and consumer groups.
 
Here are the result from the Kaiser poll. To me, it's hard to look at this as a negative. Think about it like this. For two years, Republicans had total control of all three branches of government. Democrats were pretty much silent until the 2018 election cycle. Yet we start 2019 and Kaiser polling even says the term "socialized medicine" is above water. That's a great place for House Democrats and 2020 candidates to start from.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...r-all-single-payer-health-care-2018-elections
 
PhDeac said:
Here are the result from the Kaiser poll. To me, it's hard to look at this as a negative. Think about it like this. For two years, Republicans had total control of all three branches of government. Democrats were pretty much silent until the 2018 election cycle. Yet we start 2019 and Kaiser polling even says the term "socialized medicine" is above water. That's a great place for House Democrats and 2020 candidates to start from.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...r-all-single-payer-health-care-2018-elections
Click to expand...

LOL at the 18% polling difference between M4A and socialized medicine and the 14% disparity with single payer. Maybe the packaging really is more important than the product.
 
IMO, health insurance is unpopular in part because people don't like having to learn the language associated with it (co-pay, deductible, etc). Thus, they might fear any new plan because it might come with its own set of terminology to navigate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top