• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

soul creator
at 10 you suck
at 9 you're f*cked
at 8 you're a sucker
at 7 a motherf*cker
(09-13-2017, 11:07 PM)
soul creator's Avatar
Also, lol @ Chait saying "Zero percent closer to single payer", when there's literally 15 more co-sponsors than single payer senate bills beforehand, an existing single-payer bill in the House that has a majority of Democratic cosponsors, a large amount of grassroots energy supporting it, some of the most "neoliberal" Senators supporting it, being brought forward by literally the most popular politician in the country, and a Republican party that now has little to no credibility on the issue on health care.

Bring on more of this "zero percent closer".
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:08 PM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by ErasureAcer

This reasoning is why we should save coal. The jobs man, the jobs. Let's ignore the vultures and forget about the environment. Jobs. Nothing from the status quo should change. Let's stop time. No SNES classic for any of us.

Yes obviously the correct thing to do is outlaw coal when millions of people are using coal-burning ovens.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:10 PM)

Originally Posted by kirblar

Over 65s weren't being forced to give up employer base health care plans

Nobody is giving up any health care plan. At best they're being given a better plan. This bill covers everything that their current plan does because it covers everything!

They're giving up their payee for another.

I feel like people are responding to this with tired tropes rather than what sanders is proposing
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:10 PM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by soul creator

Also, lol @ Chait saying "Zero percent closer to single payer", when there's literally 15 more co-sponsors than single payer senate bills beforehand, an existing single-payer bill in the House that has a majority of Democratic cosponsors, a large amount of grassroots energy supporting it, some of the most "neoliberal" Senators supporting it, being brought forward by literally the most popular politician in the country, and a Republican party that now has little to no credibility on the issue on health care.

Bring on more of this "zero percent closer".

The net effect of all of these things is to at best negligibly increase the chances of the bill actually passing. So yeah.

But, you know, I guess throwing red (blue?) meat to your base is way more important than actually legislating.
old
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:10 PM)
old's Avatar

Originally Posted by Guevara

If you outlaw insurance only outlaws will have insurance

I believe Canada outlaws private insurance. It's to increase the negotiating power of the state. The state becomes the only major buyer of services and drugs. No deal with them then no deal with anybody. Gives the government tremendous leverage to lower prices.

Those cheap medications in Canada don't just magically happen. They happen because the system is designed to give the people all the negotiating power instead of the big corporations.
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:13 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by NYCmetsfan

Nobody is giving up any health care plan. At best they're being given a better plan. This bill covers everything that their current plan does because it covers everything!

They're giving up their payee for another.

I feel like people are responding to this with tired tropes rather than what sanders is proposing

If you think that the resulting government plan won't be a net negative for some people currently on strong health care plans, you don't understand the range of people and plans on the market whatsoever.
xnipx
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:13 PM)

Originally Posted by pigeon

The bill literally says it's unlawful to offer insurance that covers the same benefits as Medicare. Calling that manipulative propaganda seems a little manipulative in itself!

The wording would have to change for sure. Similar to private/public school which is a right but also a premium service people pay for.

The problem is the fact that too many people opting out could cripple the system, which is also seen in education/white flight/etc and poorer public schools not receiving enough funding via taxes. It's tricky but i think Bernie has the right idea so far.
xnipx
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:15 PM)

Originally Posted by kirblar

If you think that the resulting government plan won't be a net negative for some people currently on strong health care plans, you don't understand the range of people and plans on the market whatsoever.

What is a "strong health care plan" and why would the public option be worse in your opinion? I have a gold plan through the my job and I feel no attachment to it whatsoever.
Fenderputty
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:18 PM)
Fenderputty's Avatar

Originally Posted by NYCmetsfan

Nobody is giving up any health care plan.

Stay away from my Kaiser.
deathkiller
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:21 PM)
deathkiller's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

The bill literally says it's unlawful to offer insurance that covers the same benefits as Medicare. Calling that manipulative propaganda seems a little manipulative in itself!

You think that is the same to say that "Private insurance will have to offer more than the public one and only make you pay for the extra" as to say "Private insurance is outlawed!!!" as a headline? You are creating a narrative to make sure that the public will oppose the bill. Did you see the posts of people thinking that other countries with similar laws don't have private insurances?
brianmcdoogle
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:22 PM)
brianmcdoogle's Avatar
From the New Yorker, by John Cassidy:

And it isn’t only Democrats who respond positively to the notion of a national health-care plan. The Kaiser survey from this summer showed that fifty-three per cent of all respondents say they favor a single-payer health-care system. In recent years, the biggest gains have come among self-identified independents, fifty-five per cent of whom now express support. Only among self-identified Republicans is the Sanders approach unpopular. Even in this group, though, a substantial minority (twenty-eight per cent) said that they would support a single-payer system.

Shifting from the current system to a single-payer system would, however, be a huge transformation, and, when pollsters point out to survey participants some of the things such a change would entail, support for the Sanders approach tends to drop quite sharply. For example, after the Kaiser researchers told people who initially said they favored a “Medicare for all” system that it would involve many Americans paying higher taxes, almost four in ten respondents changed their minds. The number opposing the proposal went from forty-three per cent to sixty per cent.

Sanders, at this stage, doesn’t seem keen to engage in the details about how to pay for his plan. His draft legislation doesn’t address the issue, and he told Weigel that there would be a separate bill to deal with it. “Rather than give a detailed proposal about how we’re going to raise three trillion dollars a year, we’d rather give the American people options,” he said. Last month, Sanders told National Public Radio that the real goal of his bill was to start a national conversation.

That is all very well. For decades, many have regarded the idea of establishing a national health-care system with truly universal access—something almost all other advanced countries already have—as too radical to get any traction. Sanders deserves a lot of credit for bringing it into the mainstream. But, since his new bill is lacking key details, it should be regarded as the legislative expression of a shared aspiration rather than as a blueprint for action, or as a death knell for the Affordable Care Act.

Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 11:23 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

The net effect of all of these things is to at best negligibly increase the chances of the bill actually passing. So yeah.

But, you know, I guess throwing red (blue?) meat to your base is way more important than actually legislating.

This IS legislating. By the very definition of it.
sphagnum
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:23 PM)
sphagnum's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

The net effect of all of these things is to at best negligibly increase the chances of the bill actually passing. So yeah.

But, you know, I guess throwing red (blue?) meat to your base is way more important than actually legislating.

How on earth is he supposed to legislate when the GOP controls everything? This is primarily important for testing out ideas and riling up the base.
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:23 PM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by xnipx

What is a "strong health care plan" and why would the public option be worse in your opinion? I have a gold plan through the my job and I feel no attachment to it whatsoever.

Do you... really think that a financially feasible public option could ever possibly cover *everything*? Do people really think that the supply of doctors, equipment, facilities, etc is effectively infinite and the only reason they are so expensive is those greedy insurance companies?
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:25 PM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

This IS legislating. By the very definition of it.

verb
gerund or present participle: legislating
make or enact laws.

...I'm not seeing it.

Originally Posted by sphagnum

How on earth is he supposed to legislate when the GOP controls everything? This is primarily important for testing out ideas and riling up the base.

You can lay a foundation for the future. I don't see how including a provision that would be wildly unpopular with any group other than a small subset of the democratic party helps accomplish that. Also, it's a dumb idea.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:25 PM)

Originally Posted by kirblar

If you think that the resulting government plan won't be a net negative for some people currently on strong health care plans, you don't understand the range of people and plans on the market whatsoever.

This is what I mean by not engaging with the bill and instead what you want the bill to say.

If medicare will cover something. medicare will cover it insurance can't

If medicare doesn't cover it, insurance can STIILL COVER IT.

so anybody who gets better than current plans (very few people) can't lose except for potential tax increases which is the funding mechanism. they can't lose on their coverage.
excelsiorlef
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:29 PM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

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.

There was zero public will for that.

Pelosi had to work overtime just to get public option through. It could have killed thr entire bill
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-13-2017, 11:29 PM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

verb
gerund or present participle: legislating
make or enact laws.

...I'm not seeing it.

You have a very narrow definition of legislating. Drafting and creating is part of that process.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:30 PM)

Originally Posted by kirblar

Well, I guess you won't mind people taking your stuff, since it's not actually yours and it's a fake invented concept.

Isn't this the Republican argument against the Buffett Rule?

It is possible to believe in a general rule without believing in unequal specific application!
soul creator
at 10 you suck
at 9 you're f*cked
at 8 you're a sucker
at 7 a motherf*cker
(09-13-2017, 11:32 PM)
soul creator's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

The net effect of all of these things is to at best negligibly increase the chances of the bill actually passing. So yeah.

But, you know, I guess throwing red (blue?) meat to your base is way more important than actually legislating.

For people who fetishize the idea of incremental change (not specifically you, but as a general trend), I'm surprised at the amount of "Sanders can't get this bill through the current GOP Congress, therefore this doesn't mean anything" takes
old
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:36 PM)
old's Avatar

Originally Posted by kirblar

If you think that the resulting government plan won't be a net negative for some people currently on strong health care plans, you don't understand the range of people and plans on the market whatsoever.

That's fundamentally the problem. There's an entire class of people that get platinum coverage from their job, foundation, or political status. They get everything paid for. Get to see any doctor they choose from any state they choose. Especially those beatiful luxury doctors offices and hospitals with all amenities and nice staff, unlike those hospitals with the gun detectors and staff with attitude. They get every brand name prescription too. And it's all paid for by someone else. It's awesome.

They know universal coverage means sharing those same doctors, hospitals and pills with other people. They don't want to share and they don't think you're worth it. They're going to fight every effort to expand Medicare.
StoOgE
First tragedy, then farce.
(09-13-2017, 11:36 PM)
StoOgE's Avatar

Originally Posted by ErasureAcer

Keep making shit up StoOgE. It's fun to see how wrong you are.

The people say otherwise!

and 1/3rd today want a single payer system.

I used your exact link to argue earlier today how unpopular single payer is. 1/3rd support right now and that is before it is an actual bill that might come to a vote and gets tarred and feathered by Rs.

There are paths to universal care that are not this.
MartyStu
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:38 PM)
MartyStu's Avatar

Originally Posted by soul creator

For people who fetishize the idea of incremental change (not specifically you, but as a general trend), I'm surprised at the amount of "Sanders can't get this bill through the current GOP Congress, therefore this doesn't mean anything" takes

Same here.

Symbolic attempts like this are crucial to an incrementalist approach because it ensures the conversation is never forgotten. That small changes will be conceded by the other side just stop your side from talking and changing minds.

But ultimately the problem here is obvious: Sanders is the face of this bill and some wings of the party have learned to despise him.

Originally Posted by The Wart

The net effect of all of these things is to at best negligibly increase the chances of the bill actually passing. So yeah.

But, you know, I guess throwing red (blue?) meat to your base is way more important than actually legislating.

When your party is massively in the minority, this is EXACTLY what 'legislating' looks like.

Originally Posted by Maxim726X

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands are people that are employed in the industry, as well as state run insurers.

Eradicating all of that just isn't feasible. It's going to have to be some kind of hybrid system if we want to pass it in this country.

Even if the goal is to transition to a hybrid system, the damage to the insurance industry is going to be catastrophic.

Lets not bandy words: thousands are going to lose their jobs either way.

This is not an argument for Bernie's plan, just an understanding that any implementation is going to be a revolution.
Zoe
(09-13-2017, 11:39 PM)
Zoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by old

That's fundamentally the problem. There's an entire class of people that get platinum coverage from their job, foundation, or political status. They get everything paid for. Get to see any doctor they choose from any state they choose. Especially those beatiful luxury doctors offices and hospitals with all amenities and nice staff, unlike those hospitals with the gun detectors and staff with attitude. They get every brand name prescription too. And it's all paid for by someone else. It's awesome.

They know universal coverage means sharing those same doctors, hospitals and pills with other people. They don't want to share and they don't think you're worth it. They're going to fight every effort to expand Medicare.

Why would they have to suddenly share everything? Other countries still have private services.
DrROBschiz
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:39 PM)
DrROBschiz's Avatar

Originally Posted by StoOgE

and 1/3rd today want a single payer system.

I used your exact link to argue earlier today how unpopular single payer is. 1/3rd support right now and that is before it is an actual bill that might come to a vote and gets tarred and feathered by Rs.

There are paths to universal care that are not this.

how did other countries sell it?
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:46 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by xnipx

What is a "strong health care plan" and why would the public option be worse in your opinion? I have a gold plan through the my job and I feel no attachment to it whatsoever.

My job currently pays around 500 a month in premiums for my individual plan on the back end.
I pay around 100/month. It's very good coverage with a relatively low max OOP.

If we go single payer, I am losing $500 in benefits with no guarantee that those insurance payments will convert to direct salary after the switchover happens. Also no guarantee these government benefits will end up anywhere near my current service levels. These benefits have played into my employment decisions.

I already share the same providers w everyone else. That's not the issue.
deathkiller
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:46 PM)
deathkiller's Avatar

Originally Posted by old

That's fundamentally the problem. There's an entire class of people that get platinum coverage from their job, foundation, or political status. They get everything paid for. Get to see any doctor they choose from any state they choose. Especially those beatiful luxury doctors offices and hospitals with all amenities and nice staff, unlike those hospitals with the gun detectors and staff with attitude. They get every brand name prescription too. And it's all paid for by someone else. It's awesome.

They know universal coverage means sharing those same doctors, hospitals and pills with other people. They don't want to share and they don't think you're worth it. They're going to fight every effort to expand Medicare.

Do those expensive private hospitals offer Medicare coverage? If not, nothing will change for them. Every first world country have expensive private hospitals that are not covered in any form by the public healthcare systems (except for emergency treatments but that happens already in USA).
eBay Huckster
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:46 PM)
eBay Huckster's Avatar

Originally Posted by old

I believe Canada outlaws private insurance.

I have multiple close friends in Canada (mostly in Ontario) and have researched this subject extensively as a result of wanting to emigrate there (for non-political reasons)

They absolutely do not outlaw private insurance.
LegendofJoe
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:47 PM)
LegendofJoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by soul creator

Also, lol @ Chait saying "Zero percent closer to single payer", when there's literally 15 more co-sponsors than single payer senate bills beforehand, an existing single-payer bill in the House that has a majority of Democratic cosponsors, a large amount of grassroots energy supporting it, some of the most "neoliberal" Senators supporting it, being brought forward by literally the most popular politician in the country, and a Republican party that now has little to no credibility on the issue on health care.

Bring on more of this "zero percent closer".

Yeah, this is simply not true. Corporate leadership throughout the medical industry are scared of what's brewing in the Democratic party. This is not a far left fringe idea anymore, it's trending towards becoming a policy plank of the party. It's not there yet (that's why Pelosi and Chuck didn't sign on), but it's building up serious steam.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:48 PM)

Originally Posted by DrROBschiz

how did other countries sell it?

Universal healthcare is a Christian responsibility.

We kind of missed the boat on that one.
Crosseyes
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:49 PM)
Outlawing private insurance sounds just absolutely amazing.

Probably a step better off left on the negotiating table until we can get a bit closer to a much more morally just world.

So happy it's being discussed though. A lot of people who run private insurance deserve a hell of a lot worse than fines or prison for the suffering they oversee.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(09-13-2017, 11:50 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

Universal healthcare is a Christian responsibility.

We kind of missed the boat on that one.

There was also a bit of 'this or we raise the scarlet standard high'.
kirblar
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:52 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

Isn't this the Republican argument against the Buffett Rule?

It is possible to believe in a general rule without believing in unequal specific application!

Nah, it's my argument against the Rocket Racoon rule from the end of GOTG.
Ivan A Nguyen
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:52 PM)
Ivan A Nguyen's Avatar
Is this just the democrat version of "Repeal Obamacare" rallying cry that the republicans were doing when they knew they never had the votes?
lenovox1
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:54 PM)
lenovox1's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ivan A Nguyen

Is this just the democrat version of "Repeal Obamacare" rallying cry that the republicans were doing when they knew they never had the votes?

You can already see in this thread that it's working. When the last time there's been any positive excitement around legislation and the legislative process on this forum?

Can't rally people around their own reality, apparently. You have to one up it.
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:55 PM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by soul creator

For people who fetishize the idea of incremental change (not specifically you, but as a general trend), I'm surprised at the amount of "Sanders can't get this bill through the current GOP Congress, therefore this doesn't mean anything" takes

I mean, I do in fact fetishize incremental change. I think you fetishize promises of drastic change that would be disastrous if actually implemented.

I think you're off about the nature of the argument, though to be fair I was unclear and incomplete myself in making it. The issue isn't just that Sanders can't get this through the current congress, because duh. It's also that he can't get this bill through any plausible future congress. He has an opportunity to frame the debate here, and he's chosen to do so in a way that puts the dems at a disadvantage in actually accomplishing anything in the future. It plays well with his base and that's it.

I also think that drastic restrictions on private insurance is bad policy, aside from the fact that it will be wildly unpopular. But you don't need to think that to think that this this bill is dumb.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:58 PM)

Originally Posted by xnipx

What is a "strong health care plan" and why would the public option be worse in your opinion? I have a gold plan through the my job and I feel no attachment to it whatsoever.

I mean, here's an example. Before we moved to Hawaii, my wife and I both had jobs in tech, which came with quite valuable health care plans. I once estimated the value of our in-kind wages (using various tax dlsclosure forms) at maybe $25,000 a year. Of course we didn't capture all of that since double-coverage was not useful, which is part of why this is such a bad system, but whatever. It's a lot of money!

We are also both high-cost patients -- we have pre-existing conditions and consume a lot of medical care, usually chronically but occasionally acutely. We also rely on several different medications in order to function effectively. Some of these medications are controlled -- getting prescriptions for them is not an easy or quick process, and changing providers means a potentially lengthy slog to getting access again. Some of these medications are off-label uses -- there is not necessarily any guarantee that we can easily get access to them if our provider changes. Some of these medications must be administered by a doctor, who must be specially trained for the task, and of course this requires a special appointment. There is no guarantee that we can easily find such a doctor at all if our provider changes.

I haven't even mentioned that we also have a young child! And young children come with their own whole suite of healthcare requirements and cost, which continue to evolve as they grow up.

With all of this, obviously I'd still support single-payer. But saying "Medicare will obviously just solve your problems better" is...not obvious to me. My healthcare setup is quite complicated and involves half a dozen different doctors, a lot of different diagnoses and prescriptions, and a lot of various forms, appointments, and rules. It was not easy or straightforward to get to where we are now. Please don't tell me that it will be easy to do it a second time, only with a government program instead of a high-value insurance provider which uses in-house referrals and prescriptions to simplify the process (Kaiser).
Maxim726X
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:58 PM)
Maxim726X's Avatar

Originally Posted by soul creator

Also, lol @ Chait saying "Zero percent closer to single payer", when there's literally 15 more co-sponsors than single payer senate bills beforehand, an existing single-payer bill in the House that has a majority of Democratic cosponsors, a large amount of grassroots energy supporting it, some of the most "neoliberal" Senators supporting it, being brought forward by literally the most popular politician in the country, and a Republican party that now has little to no credibility on the issue on health care.

Bring on more of this "zero percent closer".

This isn't entirely accurate, as we've just seen.

Supporting a bill that doesn't have a chance of passing is easy. Supporting it when your party is in control? Entirely different beast.

See: 2012-2017 Republicans.
pigeon
Banned
(09-13-2017, 11:59 PM)

Originally Posted by Crab

There was also a bit of 'this or we raise the scarlet standard high'.

Isn't it widely accepted that Jesus and Marx are fellow travelers?

okay, I'll leave
Zoe
(09-14-2017, 12:04 AM)
Zoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by pigeon

With all of this, obviously I'd still support single-payer. But saying "Medicare will obviously just solve your problems better" is...not obvious to me. My healthcare setup is quite complicated and involves half a dozen different doctors, a lot of different diagnoses and prescriptions, and a lot of various forms, appointments, and rules. It was not easy or straightforward to get to where we are now. Please don't tell me that it will be easy to do it a second time, only with a government program instead of a high-value insurance provider which uses in-house referrals and prescriptions to simplify the process (Kaiser).

But Kaiser will almost certainly still exist.

The way I expect it to work is Medicare would take the place of Bronze plans or maybe be a new level of coverage below that. Companies are still able to offer the higher plans at the difference of the cost.
pigeon
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:05 AM)

Originally Posted by Zoe

But Kaiser will almost certainly still exist.

The way I expect it to work is Medicare would take the place of Bronze plans or maybe be a new level of coverage below that. Companies are still able to offer the higher plans at the difference of the cost.

Right, but the actual bill doesn't seem to work anything like how you expect it to work!
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
(09-14-2017, 12:05 AM)
Rentahamster's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ivan A Nguyen

Is this just the democrat version of "Repeal Obamacare" rallying cry that the republicans were doing when they knew they never had the votes?

No, there's actual legislation behind this.
Azure Dream
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:16 AM)
Azure Dream's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

No, there's actual legislation behind this.

That was one of the saddest things ever.
Mortemis
Banned
(09-14-2017, 12:19 AM)
What's the difference between single payer and a public option if with single payer you also have private insurance that can sell the same plans?

I'm probably missing something.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
(09-14-2017, 12:22 AM)
davepoobond's Avatar
Outlawing private insurance is ridiculous.

There just needs to be a public option.
soul creator
at 10 you suck
at 9 you're f*cked
at 8 you're a sucker
at 7 a motherf*cker
(09-14-2017, 12:23 AM)
soul creator's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

I mean, I do in fact fetishize incremental change. I think you fetishize promises of drastic change that would be disastrous if actually implemented.

Who would it be disastrous for?

I think you're off about the nature of the argument, though to be fair I was unclear and incomplete myself in making it. The issue isn't just that Sanders can't get this through the current congress, because duh. It's also that he can't get this bill through any plausible future congress. He has an opportunity to frame the debate here, and he's chosen to do so in a way that puts the dems at a disadvantage in actually accomplishing anything in the future. It plays well with his base and that's it.

You know what Congress will look like in 2018? 2020? Do you allow for the possibility that moves like this are done to help influence what Congress looks like in 2018 and later, rather than just assuming we're a static country that can never be changed by movement politics?

And what evidence are you using to determine that this puts "dems at a disadvantage"? Is there any actual evidence available that Democrats have lost massive amounts of legislative power over the past 8 years and the presidency to Donald Trump because they were "too left-wing on health care"? Or is this just one of those "anything I consider too left-wing is automatically a non-starter" viewpoints?

Either way, the "base" is literally the majority of Democrats, majority of the country, and even a non-insignificant minority of conservatives. And if Sanders is actually the most popular politician in the country, as numerous evidence has shown, maybe "playing well with his base" is actually a good thing going forward?

Of course, this is where everyone usually mentions that "well, but when you frame any single-payer policy in the worst possible way without saying any of the benefits, support goes way down!"

Well, sure, I 100% agree that when you start talking about potential shitty parts of single-payer, people are less likely to support it, and polling shows this. So um, let's make sure we're not crafting a message that emphasizes all the shitty things, focus on the massive amounts of good, organize people from the ground up and in numerous communities to support the goals of this bill, and we fight back against negative messages when it does come up?

And of course, the whole point of politics is to increase your base, and part of that is done by offering things that would materially improve the lives of the vast majority of people.

I also think that drastic restrictions on private insurance is bad policy, aside from the fact that it will be wildly unpopular. But you don't need to think that to think that this this bill is dumb.

Do you think it's bad policy because it would actually lead to worse health outcomes and financial ruin for people in the US, or do you think it's bad policy because it might (possibly at some point in the future) scare people away?

I feel like these two things often get conflated. People often end up making arguments against policy based on cynicism, not because the policy is actually harmful to a large amount of people. It would help to clarify which argument is being made, because those are two related, but completely different things
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(09-14-2017, 12:23 AM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mortemis

What's the difference between single payer and a public option if with single payer you also have private insurance that can sell the same plans?

I'm probably missing something.

You don't. Under this bill, private insurance can only be sold if it does not replicate what the government would provide - it would be for 'above and beyond' matters.
old
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:29 AM)
old's Avatar

Originally Posted by eBay Huckster

I have multiple close friends in Canada (mostly in Ontario) and have researched this subject extensively as a result of wanting to emigrate there (for non-political reasons)

They absolutely do not outlaw private insurance.

My info was outdated. Quebec did. But it got struck down awhile ago. Chaoulli v Quebec (AG)
lenovox1
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:30 AM)
lenovox1's Avatar

Originally Posted by soul creator

Who would it be disastrous for?

Huh?

The millions of people that work in the private insurance industry along with the millions of people in the hospital, medical, and drug industries that have jobs that are supported by their clients in the private insurance industry.
brianmcdoogle
Member
(09-14-2017, 12:31 AM)
brianmcdoogle's Avatar
Via Prospect.org, by Harold Meyerson.

But by far the most strategically savvy aspect of the bill is its gradualism. Sanders, it’s important to recognize, has not made and does not make the perfect the enemy of the good. During the Republicans’ war on the ACA, he more actively defended that legislation—while at the same time making the case for going beyond it—than most of his peers, touring the country to rally the opposition to the GOP’s attacks. Likewise, the bill he just introduced, composed as it is of several time-specific steps, is designed to make it progressively easier for legislators to support and progressively more difficult for such entrenched interests as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to defeat.

The gradualist approach in Sanders’s bill also permits Democrats and progressives to have a more flexible approach to their own elected officials and candidates. A liberal or center-left Democrat in a red state may face electoral extinction if she endorses single-payer. She may well be strengthened at the polls, however, if she backs Medicare for kids and the middle-aged. Rather than encouraging some on the left to create a single standard for candidate support—to wit, whether that candidate backs single-payer now—the Sanders bill creates a continuum that affords candidates the ability to position themselves on a sliding scale of support, depending on the politics of their state or district. Some on the left clearly want to cast elected officials who don’t or politically can’t support the entire package now into the eternal darkness; little Lenins at the Finland Station we certainly have with us. But Sanders himself has made no such argument, and his bill clearly invites the partial endorsement of Democrats who feel constrained from backing it in its entirety.

Besides, revolutions take time. They’re a process, not an overnight transformation. Bernie understands that; so should the left.


Thread Tools