• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Aaronrules380
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:46 PM)
Aaronrules380's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

Irrelevent

Irrelevent

That's not the point.

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.

Us: This is a pointless part to include in the law that only makes us look bad
You: It's obviously a built in concession for negotiating purposes
Us: That makes no sense though, because nobody is planning to try and make negotiations on this bill because we know it will fail
You: The fact that my arguement makes no sense is completely irrelevant because reasons which I'm not willing to share because they don't actually exist
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:46 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by Armaros

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

This isn't seeing the light of day either.

The difference is in the showmanship
CampbellzSoup
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:47 PM)
CampbellzSoup's Avatar
Let's just say this makes it to Presidents Trumps desk will he sign it? I honestly want this so so bad.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:48 PM)

Originally Posted by CampbellzSoup

Let's just say this makes it to Presidents Trumps desk will he sign it? I honestly want this so so bad.

No, but it will never make it to his desk either.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:48 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by CampbellzSoup

Let's just say this makes it to Presidents Trumps desk will he sign it? I honestly want this so so bad.

It won't even get any actual debate
Aaronrules380
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:48 PM)
Aaronrules380's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

No, but it will never make it to his desk either.

Yeah, I don't see the point of entertaining complete fantasies like this
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:49 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aaronrules380

Us: This is a pointless part to include in the law that only makes us look bad
You: It's obviously a built in concession for negotiating purposes
Us: That makes no sense though, because nobody is planning to try and make negotiations on this bill because we know it will fail
You: The fact that my arguement makes no sense is completely irrelevant because reasons which I'm not willing to share because they don't actually exist

People said the $15 minimum wage was a "negotiating tactic".

That wasn't true.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:51 PM)
Eliminating private insurance is fine but I guess I assumed we would...drive it slowly out of business by offering a better product for cheaper, which theoretically is what public healthcare is supposed to be. Are we suddenly now concerned that a Medicare plan with no cost-sharing would fail in the market and needs its competitors to be banned from participating so that it can succeed?
teiresias
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:51 PM)
teiresias's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

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

It wasn't written or presented by Bernie Sanders, so obviously it doesn't matter.
LegendofJoe
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:51 PM)
LegendofJoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by Impeccable

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.

I have both family and friends in Canada and they never talk about healthcare, much less complain about it. They don't talk about it because it's not a concern for them. If I knew nothing else about the healthcare systems of either country that fact alone would tell me Canadians have it much better than Americans.
Byakuya769
Santa is Black
Jesus is too
I'll be goddamned
If I buy a WiiU
(09-13-2017, 08:51 PM)
Byakuya769's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

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

Citizens - "This neighbor is annoying and always loud. We need the government to step in!"

Bernie - "Say no more."

Bernie - "Hand over the deed and gtfo!"

[everyone calls foul. Some people even liked the neighbor when they dealt with him on a one to one basis.]

Leverage.
Bleepey
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:53 PM)
Bleepey's Avatar
Could outlawing private insurance be a ready made concession they make. It seems like something so ridiculous that the only reason to do it is so they can ask for more than they want so they can negotiate downwards,
Aaronrules380
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:53 PM)
Aaronrules380's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bleepey

Could outlawing private insurance be a ready made concession they make. It seems like something so ridiculous that the only reason to do it is so they can ask for more than they want so they can negotiate downwards,

There's literally no point in ready made concessions for a bill that nobody seriously intends to try and pass
ErasureAcer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:54 PM)
ErasureAcer's Avatar
I really hope people have a second window open and are listening to the statements of professionals and Senators.
Inuhanyou
Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
(09-13-2017, 08:56 PM)
Inuhanyou'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.

NY mag likely had this written yesterday just because they knew what they were going to say before he even announced the bill
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:57 PM)

Originally Posted by Inuhanyou

NY mag likely had this written yesterday just because they knew what they were going to say before he even announced the bill

That is how press embargoes work, you get the information you need for the story before the general public
GameAddict411
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:57 PM)
GameAddict411's Avatar
Outlawing health insurance companies? Bernie turning senile? Does he realize how much buying power these companies have? Or how much hundreds of millions of dollars that they will just throw at every Republicans to stop this? Even if the bill was a gesture, at least make it digestible.
badcrumble
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:57 PM)
badcrumble's Avatar

Originally Posted by brianmcdoogle

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.

when jonathan chait doesn't conveniently ignore all of the problems with invading countries in the middle east i'll only then consider him a worthwhile cautionary voice on other people's grand projects
benicillin
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:57 PM)

Originally Posted by pigeon

Eliminating private insurance is fine but I guess I assumed we would...drive it slowly out of business by offering a better product for cheaper, which theoretically is what public healthcare is supposed to be. Are we suddenly now concerned that a Medicare plan with no cost-sharing would fail in the market and needs its competitors to be banned from participating so that it can succeed?

I think we'd have to see what the bill actually said to know for sure, since all we have right now is a short summary by VOX.
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:58 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inuhanyou

NY mag likely had this written yesterday just because they knew what they were going to say before he even announced the bill

There were press briefings last night on the content of the bill. WaPo had an article up at 10PM about the expected contents.
mnannola
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:58 PM)
Will this bill be scored by the CBO? Is there even enough detail to score it?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 08:58 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

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?

Mischaracterization of the tactic, and bad analogy.

Originally Posted by yankeeforever2

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%.

Well, if we're going to go with bad analogies that also involve Trump, then let's see...this would be like Trump kicking off his campaign with proposing a Muslim ban, and then actually running with and getting a more limited version of a country specific travel ban, which the Supreme Court just said is okay for now, and seems a lot less horrific when compared to the original proposal (even though it still sucks).

Originally Posted by kirblar

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!)

It's not just Republicans who need convincing, as seen by how hard it was to get even Democrats on board who should, you know, naturally be for this sort of thing. The fact that Bernie was able to convince these supposed neoliberal corporate shills to sign on to this despite that provision is telling.
Shake Appeal
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:59 PM)
Shake Appeal's Avatar
It's not clear to me that this "outlaws" private insurance. See line 8 here:

brianmcdoogle
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:59 PM)
brianmcdoogle's Avatar

Originally Posted by Inuhanyou

NY mag likely had this written yesterday just because they knew what they were going to say before he even announced the bill

Originally Posted by pigeon

That is how press embargoes work, you get the information you need for the story before the general public

Originally Posted by kirblar

There were press briefings last night on the content of the bill. WaPo had an article up at 10PM about the expected contents.

Yup.
matthewuk
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:59 PM)

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.

In the UK you can buy private insurance and go to private hospitals if you choose. There is no need to out law it. It would be suicide the right will call it communism.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:00 PM)

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

Mischaracterization of the tactic, and bad analogy.

Nah
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
(09-13-2017, 09:00 PM)
The Technomancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shake Appeal

It's not clear to me that this "outlaws" private insurance. See line 8 here:

this is...even weirder then. This would probably make most employer plans largely illegal, but at least it still allows other insurance providers for weird edge cases
legacyzero
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:00 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar
Love the bill, but yeah, outlawing private insurance? Why?

And not breaking down the pay structure is not a good way to start.

I wanna hear the talking points from the cosponsors
Red Blaster
downloading Angry Birds
(09-13-2017, 09:00 PM)
Red Blaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by badcrumble

when jonathan chait doesn't conveniently ignore all of the problems with invading countries in the middle east i'll only then consider him a worthwhile cautionary voice on other people's grand projects

interesting that jon didnt seem to have any problem supporting something big without having every detail of its implementation outlined when he boosted the iraq war
Iksenpets
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:01 PM)
Iksenpets's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

Eliminating private insurance is fine but I guess I assumed we would...drive it slowly out of business by offering a better product for cheaper, which theoretically is what public healthcare is supposed to be. Are we suddenly now concerned that a Medicare plan with no cost-sharing would fail in the market and needs its competitors to be banned from participating so that it can succeed?

The idea is that by forcing everyone into one plan, you have maximum leverage to negotiate prices with hospitals and drive costs down. Also the egalitarian idea of forcing rich and poor into the same plan, rather than allowing the rich to operate in a high-cost, high-quality parallel system.

That said, whenever Dems take back control, centrists in the caucus probably negotiate this down to allowing anyone to buy into Medicare as a public option on the Obamacare exchanges, allowing employers to buy in as well, dropping the dental/vision included in Bernie's plan, plus more generous subsidies to make sure anyone can buy in instead trying to push the poorest into Medicaid which states can sabotage as we've seen, and harsher individual mandate penalties to make sure young people aren't opting out of insurance and just eating the penalty. That would get you most of the way to the situation you're describing, although with a private market probably still existing for the wealthiest 10 or 20 percent, and for supplemental plans (which would still exist under Bernie's plan).

Especially given that this plan has no funding mechanism, given that they don't have one they feel comfortable selling people on yet, a lot of this probably gets negotiated away, even in a Democratic government, over the course of figuring out how to fund it.

Originally Posted by Shake Appeal

It's not clear to me that this "outlaws" private insurance. See line 8 here:

It outlaws general plans. Private insurance would only be able to offer plans that cover things the Medicare doesn't, which is obviously a much, much smaller market than currently exists. Private insurance companies would still exist, but several would go out of business and any that would remain would see serious downsizing.
Shake Appeal
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:01 PM)
Shake Appeal's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

this is...even weirder then.

Is it? In Europe, it's fairly standard for your employer to give you slightly better insurance than is guaranteed by the state. I grew up in a country with singlepayer health insurance, but my dad (and so our family) had private health insurance provided by his job.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
(09-13-2017, 09:02 PM)
Doc Holliday's Avatar

Originally Posted by excelsiorlef

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



That's my point :D

Obama should have started with medicare for all, and public option should gave been the compromise.
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:02 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

It's not just Republicans who need convincing, as seen by how hard it was to get even Democrats on board who should, you know, naturally be for this sort of thing. The fact that Bernie was able to convince these supposed neoliberal corporate shills to sign on to this despite that provision is telling.

Ignoring economics in favor of things that match up with your personal idealized utopian vision shouldn't be a bipartisan thing! We have one party doing that already, we don't need two.

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

That's my point :D

Obama should have started with medicare for all, and public option should gave been the compromise.

If Obama runs to the left of Clinton in '08 there's a good chance he doesn't win the nomination. You don't want to actually be the left-most candidate.
ApharmdX
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:02 PM)

Originally Posted by badcrumble

when jonathan chait doesn't conveniently ignore all of the problems with invading countries in the middle east i'll only then consider him a worthwhile cautionary voice on other people's grand projects

That. Also, this:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ng-to-say.html

How the language police are perverting liberalism.

Yeah, I'm not a fan.
Maxim726X
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:03 PM)
Maxim726X's Avatar

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.

It's honestly so absurd that it leads me to believe that he knows it's impossible to pay for.

He doesn't want this to get taken seriously, because then people would start asking questions.

I'm sure it's just a symbolic gesture, so have at it
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
(09-13-2017, 09:03 PM)
The Technomancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shake Appeal

Is it? In Europe, it's fairly standard for your employer to give you slightly better insurance than is guaranteed by the state. I grew up in a country with singlepayer health insurance, but my dad (and so our family) had private health insurance provided by his job.

Right and this would make it illegal I think? What is "benefits" here? Access to care, or access to care at a specified cost?
Zoe
(09-13-2017, 09:03 PM)
Zoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

this is...even weirder then. This would probably make most employer plans largely illegal, but at least it still allows other insurance providers for weird edge cases

It's not weird at all. It's allowing for supplemental insurance.
DrROBschiz
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:04 PM)
DrROBschiz'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

YUUUPP agreed
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 09:04 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

this is...even weirder then. This would probably make most employer plans largely illegal, but at least it still allows other insurance providers for weird edge cases

No, it's not weird. It's like Canada, where you can purchase private insurance for stuff the public system doesn't cover.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:05 PM)
"I disagree with Chait on unrelated topics" is a very bad counterargument to his criticism. You guys get that, right?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
(09-13-2017, 09:07 PM)
The Technomancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zoe

It's not weird at all. It's allowing for supplemental insurance.

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

No, it's not weird. It's like Canada, where you can purchase private insurance for stuff the public system doesn't cover.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html

Sorry I should be clearer; if its still going to outlaw most employer offered plans then it still has the big glaring thing everyone is looking at and going "wait wtf" but means they did think about it enough to say "okay but private insurance should still be around for the extra stuff".

I really want to know what some of the terms used in here mean
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:07 PM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aaronrules380

There's literally no point in ready made concessions for a bill that nobody seriously intends to try and pass

There is if including it makes you look like a lunatic. Anything like outlawing private insurance is going to be a) wildly unpopular and is b) incredibly dumb policy that would throw massive portions of the economy into chaos.

The goal is to put forward a position that large numbers of people, not just the far-left wing of the democratic party, finds appealing.
BstnRich
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:08 PM)
BstnRich's Avatar
All these hot takes....

Can't wait until this passes one day and people realize how much they actually like it.
Abelard
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:08 PM)
Abelard'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.

I'm a dual citizen of both Canada and the US (living in the former ATM) and as far as I know it is possible to get private insurance lol...
Phrozenflame500
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:09 PM)
Phrozenflame500'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

Yeah I'm pretty sure Single-Payer might be one of the worst systems to push for UHC in the US. But hey, this is "just to start a conversation" I guess.
shamanick
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:10 PM)
shamanick's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

"I disagree with Chait on unrelated topics" is a very bad counterargument to his criticism. You guys get that, right?

Chait is consistently terrible, and that may provide some insight into his most recent article. I'm sure you don't visit Breitbart with an open mind
TalkingToast
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:10 PM)

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

No, it's not weird. It's like Canada, where you can purchase private insurance for stuff the public system doesn't cover.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like this has resulted in pricing in both of those industries (Vision and dental care) getting to a pretty weird place. I don't have vision or dental insurance, and I stopped going to the opto despite probably needing glasses because of how unpleasant the whole experience is, with people putting pressure on you to get all of these unnecessary and super expensive tests that I didn't come in for.

I've experienced this to a lesser extent with dentistry, which thankfully I still have minimal insurance for from school. I don't know if this is a direct result of insurance being available, but I think that would make sense.
BlazinSkatinAxel
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:12 PM)
BlazinSkatinAxel's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

this is...even weirder then. This would probably make most employer plans largely illegal, but at least it still allows other insurance providers for weird edge cases

This prevents plan duplication by health care providers. They will have to provide more or less coverage.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 09:14 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by BstnRich

All these hot takes....

Can't wait until this passes one day and people realize how much they actually like it.

Yep. You can see the same pattern in Obamacare. Preexisting conditions used to be omg socialism, and now you can't get rid of it without incurring lots of wrath.

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

Sorry I should be clearer; if its still going to outlaw most employer offered plans then it still has the big glaring thing everyone is looking at and going "wait wtf" but means they did think about it enough to say "okay but private insurance should still be around for the extra stuff".

I really want to know what some of the terms used in here mean

Do you have a problem with the way Canada does it?

Originally Posted by Abelard

I'm a dual citizen of both Canada and the US (living in the former ATM) and as far as I know it is possible to get private insurance lol...

I know right lol...
Inuhanyou
Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
(09-13-2017, 09:15 PM)
Inuhanyou's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

That is how press embargoes work, you get the information you need for the story before the general public

i'm saying they had their talking points lined up long before now, because they obviously were not looking at the substance of the bill based on their language in the post i quoted. or atleast the guy who wrote the article anyways.

Thread Tools