• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

brianmcdoogle
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:27 PM)
brianmcdoogle's Avatar

Asked by Vox about the difficulty of switching people out of employer-based insurance, he scoffs, “It’s not a question of switching plans,” and then segues into a generalized riff about the merits of universal insurance. (In real politics, you can’t answer people’s concerns by denying they’re concerns.) Asked by the Washington Post about the taxes needed to finance his plan, he insists that we have no idea how much it would cost because the only studies so far have been faked by big pharma and the insurance industry: “The truth is, embarrassingly, that on this enormously important issue, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need. You’ve got think tanks, in many cases funded by the drug companies and the insurance companies, telling us how terribly expensive it’s going to be.”

The bill does not contain any tax increases, leaving those to a separate piece of legislation. A nonspecific health-care plan that lacks a plausible financing system has accomplished approximately zero percent of the necessary work, as the Republicans discovered this year.

There is nothing in Sanders’s rhetoric that indicates he even recognizes the shape of the political problem. Instead he employs the classic populist technique of imagining the people as a whole standing united around an obvious solution, and only the machinations of an invidious elite can thwart them.
via New York Magazine.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:28 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by StoOgE

It's *super* dumb. Medigap insurance and supplemental insurance on top of Medicare are *super* popular.

This is like the Canadian system where private insurance isn't allowed at all that all my Canadian friends bitch about non-stop.


https://www.sunlife.ca/ca/Insurance/...gnLocale=en_CA

We have stuff like this here in Canada. Is this not considered private health insurance?
ieptbarakat
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:29 PM)
ieptbarakat's Avatar
I love Bernie but outlawing private insurance isn't going to get your bill passed, no matter the good intentions. It'd be better to have people who can afford private insurance be able to buy it but still require them to pay their share of the public insurance he wants everyone to have.
badcrumble
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:30 PM)
badcrumble's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle


Asked by Vox about the difficulty of switching people out of employer-based insurance, he scoffs, “It’s not a question of switching plans,” and then segues into a generalized riff about the merits of universal insurance. (In real politics, you can’t answer people’s concerns by denying they’re concerns.) Asked by the Washington Post about the taxes needed to finance his plan, he insists that we have no idea how much it would cost because the only studies so far have been faked by big pharma and the insurance industry: “The truth is, embarrassingly, that on this enormously important issue, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need. You’ve got think tanks, in many cases funded by the drug companies and the insurance companies, telling us how terribly expensive it’s going to be.”

The bill does not contain any tax increases, leaving those to a separate piece of legislation. A nonspecific health-care plan that lacks a plausible financing system has accomplished approximately zero percent of the necessary work, as the Republicans discovered this year.

There is nothing in Sanders’s rhetoric that indicates he even recognizes the shape of the political problem. Instead he employs the classic populist technique of imagining the people as a whole standing united around an obvious solution, and only the machinations of an invidious elite can thwart them.
via New York Magazine.

Gosh I can't believe Jonathan Chait has a problem with this.
benicillin
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:30 PM)

Originally Posted by ieptbarakat

I love Bernie but outlawing private insurance isn't going to get your bill passed, no matter the good intentions. It'd be better to have people who can afford private insurance be able to buy it but still require them to pay their share of the 'common' public insurance he wants everyone to have.

He doesn't expect the bill to get passed, it's about presenting ideas and moving the dialogue in a direction thats more favorable to democrats.

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle


Asked by Vox about the difficulty of switching people out of employer-based insurance, he scoffs, “It’s not a question of switching plans,” and then segues into a generalized riff about the merits of universal insurance. (In real politics, you can’t answer people’s concerns by denying they’re concerns.) Asked by the Washington Post about the taxes needed to finance his plan, he insists that we have no idea how much it would cost because the only studies so far have been faked by big pharma and the insurance industry: “The truth is, embarrassingly, that on this enormously important issue, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need. You’ve got think tanks, in many cases funded by the drug companies and the insurance companies, telling us how terribly expensive it’s going to be.”

The bill does not contain any tax increases, leaving those to a separate piece of legislation. A nonspecific health-care plan that lacks a plausible financing system has accomplished approximately zero percent of the necessary work, as the Republicans discovered this year.

There is nothing in Sanders’s rhetoric that indicates he even recognizes the shape of the political problem. Instead he employs the classic populist technique of imagining the people as a whole standing united around an obvious solution, and only the machinations of an invidious elite can thwart them.
via New York Magazine.

(In real politics, you can’t answer people’s concerns by denying they’re concerns.)

Where is this dude's editor?
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:30 PM)
Knuckle Sandwich's Avatar
Outlawing private insurance? Okie dokie. Why even put that in this bill that won't get anywhere? That will be the talking point from Fox and them. Evil commies wanna outlaw private business. Good job dude.
balladofwindfishes
(09-13-2017, 08:31 PM)
balladofwindfishes's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

He doesn't expect the bill to get passed, it's about presenting ideas and moving the dialogue in a direction thats more favorable to democrats.

Outlawing private insurance just derails the entire conversation because of how ridiculous it is.
Prax
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:31 PM)
Prax's Avatar

Originally Posted by StoOgE

It's *super* dumb. Medigap insurance and supplemental insurance on top of Medicare are *super* popular.

This is like the Canadian system where private insurance isn't allowed at all that all my Canadian friends bitch about non-stop.

????????
Canadians do have the option to buy private insurance or have supplemental insurance, often covered by work, that covers beyond what is normally covered by Canadian insurance (hospital essentials and family doctor checkups)... I do not understand this post. lol Maybe your friends are just misinformed?
We also have private clinics so.. ???
Netherscourge
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:31 PM)
Outlawing private insurance will never pass.

Regulating private insurance would be a much better idea.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:33 PM)

Originally Posted by badcrumble

Gosh I can't believe Jonathan Chait has a problem with this.

I can totally believe you don't actually have a response to his critique, though.
Maridia
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:33 PM)
Maridia's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin


Where is this dude's editor?

"They are" works in context.

Also, it's tough for me to believe that there are a bunch of Democrats, who will have to be reelected at some point, who are going to go on record as supporting, and possibly even voting in favor of, outlawing private insurance.
zelas
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:33 PM)
Well now we see why most Dems never backed this. Someday they'll have an electorate like Bernie's that will allow them to do otherwise.
teiresias
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:34 PM)
teiresias's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

Where is this dude's editor?

It's fine. He's saying Bernie is denying their concerns by saying denying they are (they're) real concerns.

(In real politics, you can’t answer people’s concerns by denying they’re concerns.)
Gnome Scat
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:34 PM)
Gnome Scat's Avatar

Originally Posted by kirblar

This did not need to be a part of this bill.

Yeah, it's going to be a huge black eye on the bill.
ApharmdX
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:34 PM)

Originally Posted by StoOgE

It's *super* dumb. Medigap insurance and supplemental insurance on top of Medicare are *super* popular.

This is like the Canadian system where private insurance isn't allowed at all that all my Canadian friends bitch about non-stop.

The only way it makes sense is as a built-in concession, as one poster suggested. It makes the proposal much less palatable with this part included.
fauxtrot
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:34 PM)
fauxtrot's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle


Asked by Vox about the difficulty of switching people out of employer-based insurance, he scoffs, “It’s not a question of switching plans,” and then segues into a generalized riff about the merits of universal insurance. (In real politics, you can’t answer people’s concerns by denying they’re concerns.) Asked by the Washington Post about the taxes needed to finance his plan, he insists that we have no idea how much it would cost because the only studies so far have been faked by big pharma and the insurance industry: “The truth is, embarrassingly, that on this enormously important issue, there has not been the kind of research and study that we need. You’ve got think tanks, in many cases funded by the drug companies and the insurance companies, telling us how terribly expensive it’s going to be.”

The bill does not contain any tax increases, leaving those to a separate piece of legislation. A nonspecific health-care plan that lacks a plausible financing system has accomplished approximately zero percent of the necessary work, as the Republicans discovered this year.

There is nothing in Sanders’s rhetoric that indicates he even recognizes the shape of the political problem. Instead he employs the classic populist technique of imagining the people as a whole standing united around an obvious solution, and only the machinations of an invidious elite can thwart them.
via New York Magazine.

You could have just told me this was written by Jonathan Chait so I could have made the sound decision to not even bother with it.
Aaronrules380
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:35 PM)
Aaronrules380's Avatar

Originally Posted by ApharmdX

The only way it makes sense is as a built-in concession, as one poster suggested. It makes the proposal much less palatable with this part included.

built in concessions don't really make sense on a bill that everyone knows is DOA anyways
gutter_trash
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:35 PM)
gutter_trash's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chindogg

Fighting to not lose has continuously been a shit strategy for Democrats and it's frustrating how they continue to follow the playbook in hopes that one day voters will realize they were right.

priorities in the present under the reality of a Republican Congress and Presidency
Enduin
No bald cap? Lies!
(09-13-2017, 08:36 PM)
Enduin's Avatar
Outlawing is pretty extreme, but I guess they're going for the go big or go home approach since it's such a long shot as is.
teiresias
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:37 PM)
teiresias's Avatar
Next Bernie will be suggesting NASA manufacture cell phones and computers and outlaw Apple, Dell, IBM, Lenovo, etc.
jakonovski
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:37 PM)
jakonovski's Avatar
The ugly part is that Bernie is all you have on creating universal health care. No one else will do anything.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
(09-13-2017, 08:37 PM)
The Technomancer's Avatar
"They're going to make your existing insurance illegal" is quite possible the single worst soundbyte that could possibly emerge from this sort of proposal
Saint Gregory
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:37 PM)
Saint Gregory's Avatar

Originally Posted by kirblar

This did not need to be a part of this bill.

I'm not sure if that's the best way to address the issue but health insurance shouldn't be a for profit industry. I'm sure there's some way to transition the industry into non-profit without killing the private sector insurance companies.
ieptbarakat
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:38 PM)
ieptbarakat's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

He doesn't expect the bill to get passed, it's about presenting ideas and moving the dialogue in a direction thats more favorable to democrats.

I understand that it's purely for discussion purposes, but having that in there seems more likely to have a recoil effect and end the conversation altogether.

But if it's meant to be for haggling purposes, I guess it works.
LegendofJoe
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:38 PM)
LegendofJoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Outlawing private insurance is going to really be unpopular.

Dems need to push hybrid models like Germany and Holland for universal healthcare.

https://www.economist.com/news/unite...e-can-be-found

I agree, it's by far the most sensible and probable way forward.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 08:38 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

It's also not really clear why private insurance needs to be outlawed.

Originally Posted by kirblar

This did not need to be a part of this bill.

Originally Posted by djplaeskool

Expect to hear the word Socialism/Socialist a lot in the near future.
Straight up outlawing private insurance is a non-starter.

Originally Posted by yankeeforever2

Outlawing private insurance is a non starter with most of congress, would never get support and it is not a good idea.

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

I don't get why its in there. Its the one thing that doesn't make any kind of sense

Originally Posted by balladofwindfishes

Yep, kills the entire bill that is otherwise pretty decently designed (beyond not knowing how to pay for it, but that can be hashed out later)

Originally Posted by Plinko

LOL at outlawing private insurance. Classic Bernie. Start with a decent idea and then take it to an extreme to make it completely untenable.

Originally Posted by makingmusic476

I don't get why they'd outlaw private insurance.

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Outlawing private insurance is going to really be unpopular.

Originally Posted by ieptbarakat

I love Bernie but outlawing private insurance isn't going to get your bill passed, no matter the good intentions.

Originally Posted by Knuckle Sandwich

Outlawing private insurance? Okie dokie. Why even put that in this bill that won't get anywhere? That will be the talking point from Fox and them. Evil commies wanna outlaw private business. Good job dude.

Originally Posted by Netherscourge

Outlawing private insurance will never pass.

Regulating private insurance would be a much better idea.

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
(09-13-2017, 08:39 PM)
Doc Holliday's Avatar
This is what Obama should have done. You don't start bargaining with the compromise.

This has no chance to pass or even come to debate, but It's a strategy we should take moving forwards.

Go for Medicare for all, and the compromise might no be so bad.
balladofwindfishes
(09-13-2017, 08:39 PM)
balladofwindfishes's Avatar

Originally Posted by jakonovski

The ugly part is that Bernie is all you have on creating universal health care. No one else will do anything.

Other than an entire political party called the Democrats, you mean.

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

Leverage on a bill that has no intention of ever being passed??
Chindogg
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:39 PM)
Chindogg's Avatar

Originally Posted by gutter_trash

priorities in the present under the reality of a Republican Congress and Presidency

They're still most likely going to lose.
Aaronrules380
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:39 PM)
Aaronrules380's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

Negotiation leverage is kind of pointless on a bill that's being sent out to die for the sake of political theater.
Armaros
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:40 PM)
Armaros's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

What leverage is there to a easy political position to attack?

'Democrats what to outlaw health insurance in a government takeover' is a position of strength for democrats?
benicillin
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:41 PM)

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

"They're going to make your existing insurance illegal" is quite possible the single worst soundbyte that could possibly emerge from this sort of proposal

The house bill did more or less the same thing and we didn't hear much about it.
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:41 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

If/When we get a DDD setup to pass a bill, we are not negotiating with the majority of the GOP.

"Running it like a business" is not how things work in politics and when passing legislation.
brianmcdoogle
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:41 PM)
brianmcdoogle's Avatar

Originally Posted by badcrumble

Gosh I can't believe Jonathan Chait has a problem with this.

Originally Posted by fauxtrot

You could have just told me this was written by Jonathan Chait so I could have made the sound decision to not even bother with it.

Yeah, he’s not (hot garbage) The Intercept or The Yong Turks but he’s a prolific writer on the left and is offering a critique. Thought it might be of interest to people what a moderate on the left might write about it for a major publication.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:41 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

Negotiation with who? This isn't even remotely going to move forward beyond this current stage with this congress.
iammeiam
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:42 PM)
iammeiam's Avatar
This seems like kind of a weird bill? There's some smart stuff in here that speaks to wanting to make it a real possibility (the staggered rollout.) There's some stuff that you add to make it easier to vote for--strip the costs out, as noted, to avoid cosponsors getting tagged for wanting to raise taxes. And then there's the pure ideology stuff which wasn't necessary to make it look real and will do nothing but provide bad soundbites (You like your plan? It's now illegal. Gg)

So I dunno. If the goal is to unify around universal healthcare, and we all know this isn't getting to be a law any time soon, why poison it? Unless outlawing private insurance is just twisting what's really in there.
Karsticles
(09-13-2017, 08:42 PM)
Karsticles's Avatar

Originally Posted by ieptbarakat

I love Bernie but outlawing private insurance isn't going to get your bill passed, no matter the good intentions. It'd be better to have people who can afford private insurance be able to buy it but still require them to pay their share of the public insurance he wants everyone to have.

Yes. Just like schools.
Maridia
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:42 PM)
Maridia's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

Having Democrats go on record as supporting the destruction of a large sector of the economy actually helps Republicans. A huge number of people work for insurance companies. Tens of millions more have stock in insurance companies through their 401k plans. It's absurd.
Impeccable
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:43 PM)
Impeccable's Avatar
Interesting.

Love how people on the internet always have these Canadian friends that bitch about our healthcare non-stop. It is like one of the best phantom things to say.
Armaros
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:43 PM)
Armaros's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

The house bill did more or less the same thing and we didn't hear much about it.

Did that bill live to see the light of day?

Lots of crazy bills get written and die without ever being heard. 99.9999% of them never get discussed
Foffy
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:43 PM)
Foffy's Avatar
It would be great to outlaw private insurance, but you would need that at the start.

You're better off regulating them to the point where their greed is a crippling force. EmCare should not be a toxic thing in every emergency room they're employed in, for example. Their tactics should be severed via regulations.
Inuhanyou
Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
(09-13-2017, 08:43 PM)
Inuhanyou's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...c-single-payer

Behind closed doors, so second hand accounts, but here it is. There are things I like, like the staggered four year rollout which I think helps fight some of the "counter-inertia" by enrolling large groups at once, and things I don't like like the bizarre idea of actually outlawing private insurance.

Have at it folks

EDIT: Is the full public reveal later today?

he doesn't completely outlaw for profits, for profit hospitals would still exist in the plan unfortunately. But the employer based system and for profit monopoly would be all but dead, which is the most important thing.

you have to realize OP that a HUGE portion of our medical waste right now is in the middleman that is the private insurance monoply. If you cut that out, the government saves tons and can directly donate to healthcare instead of paying the insurance companies to provide spotty and unreliable insurance that they weigh on a scale of how much money they will make.


Anyway, a good first showing IMO, although i am dissapointed Bernie did not use the funding mechanism he had before. there are going to have to be tax increases for people to subsidize this, this is common sense, but you can't shield the neoliberals by not putting your argument face forward because of the kneejerk "RAISING TAXES, IT COST SO MUCH!"

Tax increases will be offset by employers not taking money out of your check and not having to pay any premiums or co pays. this primarily helps the lower classes who would be most affected by high costs of healthcare and puts the bigger share of paying for the plan on the higher classes(in sanders original plan, you were taxed in increments at 250k and above) who can afford the higher tax increase.

in addition to that, the plan itself is replacing our current system, so its not as if the cost is being added onto our current healthcare plan, but merely swapping one out for the other, and the single payer plan is cheaper which would be a net gain of trillions of dollars for the federal government to spend on other programs that people need.

Its freaking simple, by shielding the dems who are scared of right wing talking points or believe them themselves, your weakening the most important part of the debate, and that is standing your ground. You've got to have those charges leveled at you and strike back without hesitation
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 08:44 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by balladofwindfishes

Leverage on a bill that has no intention of ever being passed??

Irrelevent

Originally Posted by Aaronrules380

Negotiation leverage is kind of pointless on a bill that's being sent out to die for the sake of political theater.

Irrelevent

Originally Posted by Armaros

What leverage is there to a easy political position to attack?

'Democrats what to outlaw health insurance in a government takeover' is a position of strength for democrats?

That's not the point.

Originally Posted by kirblar

If/When we get a DDD setup to pass a bill, we are not negotiating with the majority of the GOP.

"Running it like a business" is not how things work in politics and when passing legislation.

Well, if most of y'all are clamoring so badly for private insurance to not be outlawed, and the Republicans actually want the same thing as you, then you aren't actually losing anything if you give that up in exchange for other concessions.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:44 PM)

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

That's not actually how negotiation works. You don't get brownie points for adopting crazy ideas only to immediately ditch them.

Do you go into salary negotiations by saying your demand is for control of the company, so that you have negotiation leverage when you give it up?
gutter_trash
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:44 PM)
gutter_trash's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chindogg

They're still most likely going to lose.

what are you talking about?

I'm not talking about elections in the future tense,

I'm talking about slowing down Trump's agenda in the present.
yankeeforever2
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:44 PM)

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

When people don't recognize negotiation leverage even when it's right in front of their faces.

It's a non starter, you can't run negotiation's with non starters. It's like if trump said he wanted to make the tax rate 0%.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:44 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

This is what Obama should have done. You don't start bargaining with the compromise.

This has no chance to pass or even come to debate, but It's a strategy we should take moving forwards.

Go for Medicare for all, and the compromise might no be so bad.


ACA as is was the compromise. The original bill had a public option which actually passed the House (Nice work Pelosi) but got amended out in the Senate to make sure at least some reform would happen
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:45 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

Well, if most of y'all are clamoring so badly for private insurance to not be outlawed, and the Republicans actually want the same thing as you, then you aren't actually losing anything if you give that up in exchange for other concessions.

If you have control of congress, you do not need concessions from the other side!

You are trying to reach an agreement within your own. (And we have one, on the public option!)
Pilgrimzero
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:46 PM)
Pilgrimzero's Avatar
I like the part where Bernie said ex Insurancr Agents weren't allowed to own property and could only wear burlap sacks.
ErasureAcer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:46 PM)
ErasureAcer's Avatar

Originally Posted by iammeiam

This seems like kind of a weird bill? There's some smart stuff in here that speaks to wanting to make it a real possibility (the staggered rollout.) There's some stuff that you add to make it easier to vote for--strip the costs out, as noted, to avoid cosponsors getting tagged for wanting to raise taxes. And then there's the pure ideology stuff which wasn't necessary to make it look real and will do nothing but provide bad soundbites (You like your plan? It's now illegal. Gg)

So I dunno. If the goal is to unify around universal healthcare, and we all know this isn't getting to be a law any time soon, why poison it? Unless outlawing private insurance is just twisting what's really in there.

If you're rich, I'm sure you can find someone to operate on you.

This has always been the plan, eliminate private insurance. You obviously are young or haven't been paying attention. Medicare for All is a government funded, privately delivered system. It cuts out the middleman. There is obvious costs to be saved just from switching from eliminating the scourge of health insurance companies.

Amazing how all these people are talking, live, right now...but no one is watching the stream and hearing what people have to say.

Thread Tools