-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie Sanders To Announce Single-Payer Healthcare Medicare For All Legislation
- Thread starter flkraven
- Start date
- Status
fredrancour
Member
in practice the democratic party is an alliance of progressives and center-left people who like the free market but believe a social safety net should exist and regulations in some amount are necessary. there'd have to be a certain critical mass of support for single-payer within the party to pressure the moderates to go along with it even if there were a veto-proof majority
1. Introduce single payer plan.
2. Get CBO to score it, including how much people save by paying more in taxes but less in premiums / deductibles.
3. Wait for 2018 Midterms so democrats can run on it.
4. Vote on bill in 2019 when dems take the house and senate.
5. Get Trump/Pence/Ryan/Whomeverthefuck to pass it because they haven't done shit else in 2 years.
2. Get CBO to score it, including how much people save by paying more in taxes but less in premiums / deductibles.
3. Wait for 2018 Midterms so democrats can run on it.
4. Vote on bill in 2019 when dems take the house and senate.
5. Get Trump/Pence/Ryan/Whomeverthefuck to pass it because they haven't done shit else in 2 years.
soul creator
Member
anything to get this part of the national conversation, I'm for it. Even if it gets voted down or not even brought to a vote (which it more than obviously what would happen given the current makeup of Congress, and the fact that even Democrats themselves often fight against this), it'd be nice to at least maybe have it on record on who's really for it and who isn't. And if this slowly starts being talked about on places like CNN, then even better. A CBO score would be nice too (was supposed to be one in 2009-2010, but it never happened)
It'll be an uphill battle, of course
It'll be an uphill battle, of course
boiled goose
good with gravy
That's the democratic party in theory not in practice. These days they represent things other than just constituents
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Honestly, I think this is more feasible than President Clinton usher in a true universal program (not that either one is particularly likely). A movement that really wanted to win universal healthcare in this country would build the largest movement and put pressure on whoever is in office. Working to elect Democrats who don't want universal healthcare is not going to do the job. The liberal emphasis on bigoted neo-fascists in rural America is an impediment to actual concrete reform, and probably by design.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Center left would mean some criticism of capitalism. It doesn't have to be revolutionary, but it would recognize that capitalism tends to consolidate wealth into a few powerful hands. The leadership of the Democratic party does not do this. The Democratic party promotes reforms that further privatize existing public services.
In other words, the Democratic party is center-right.
The "alliance of progressives and center-left" people are the voting base, who don't have any electoral alternative. The leadership of the Democratic party knows this and is therefore free to ignore their demands.
El_Tiguere
Member
We Democrats have to drain our own swamp of the centrist Corporate Democrats who refuse to get on the side of the majority of Americans. Shunning the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, etc is a start. Being fighters for the workers like Bernie, is the next step.
It probably won't pass but that's not really the point. If it does pass great, if it doesn't then you can use it to point out "Look, they still blocked health care reform even when it was more universally positive!"
People have tried to push the Private Prison Information Act like 10 times over the decade...they know it probably won't pass but it still helps make a statement. Less so in that case, but still
People have tried to push the Private Prison Information Act like 10 times over the decade...they know it probably won't pass but it still helps make a statement. Less so in that case, but still
Shake Appeal
Member
The point is to put it in public even when it will fail. Again. And again. And again. Until one day, maybe many decades from now, it does pass.
Required Rick Perlstein reading: http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR29.3/perlstein.html
Required Rick Perlstein reading: http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR29.3/perlstein.html
sounds like a good way to get Primaried
boiled goose
good with gravy
It doesn't even have to Critizice capitalism, just crony capitalism bribing our politicians for their own profits at expense of other more core democratic, pro worker values.
Hastert Rule means this never comes up for a vote in a Republican controlled House, ever. Might not even make it to committee or get scored by the CBO. He could get an independent analysis, but Republican supports don;t trust the CBO as it is, so unless it comes from the mouth of the anointed spray tan himself, they won't believe it.
edit: Just remembered this fun fact: The Hastert Rule is the only congressional rule named after a child molester (that we know of).
edit: Just remembered this fun fact: The Hastert Rule is the only congressional rule named after a child molester (that we know of).
sugarhigh4242
Banned
I disagree. Criticizing "crony capitalism" is what the right does. The right likes to say that America's problems are the result of disruptions in the Free Market.
It's the left's job to say that the so-called free market is the problem itself. I think it's entirely rational to look toward replacing capitalist markets completely (relax, i'm not saying overnight), but to be center-left, you at least have to acknowledge the problem.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Hopefully this doesn't distract Bernie from the upcoming tax "reform" fight. That is where we will need his voice bigly, especially since it touches on his core concern.
Autoignition
Member
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Yeah, and look at the difference.
crony capitalism is just capitalism, you never see one without the other. the mere existence of powerful private interests necessarily corrupts public institutions and it's the left's job to push back against it.
Autoignition
Member
Yeah, it's almost like they're not in the same party!
plagiarize
Banned
No it isn't.
I mean, I want Citizen's United undone too, but it isn't the left's job to represent what a minority of their voters actually want.
Look, putting this legislation forwards is smart even though it's certainly not going anywhere. The left is going to prove they are offering solutions, not just resistance, with moves like this. And that's good... because when we get power back, we need to be able to govern and that requires thinking about this stuff even when you aren't in power.
But yeah, sorry that the left isn't the party you wish it was. Sorry that you feel unrepresented. You change that, by voting at every level of politics for people aligned with you.
Say they keep losing, well... that'd just the way the cookie crumbles I guess.
That's not how a political party works.
i'm arguing that the democrats are right-wing by definition. leftist politics are necessarily anti-capitalist to some degree.
Did anyone outside of some random liberal blogs even mention this, because in less than 24 hours GAF is probably the number 1 activity on this story.
There is no audience for things that don't even get debated
Autoignition
Member
CNN had a literal 2-minute blip on it the day it was announced. Silence since then.
aeolist said "the left", not "the Democrats".
sugarhigh4242
Banned
How can we get all the socialists on GAF in one place? I feel like we could have one really constructive thread through the power of collective action.
Put "Bernie Sanders" in the title of any thread
LizardKing
Member
This is what we have to get through to people. Literally every single study done (and there have been many, including multiple by the CBO) has concluded that we would be paying LESS (which is what the CBO concludes) or about the same as we are now, with a single payer system with coverage for ALL. Currently among the western world our healthcare ranks dead last, behind all those other government backed HC countries. We pay about twice as much as everyone else and we have worse care. WHY are we so stubborn to do this!?
Autoignition
Member
Dear lord, no wonder why your wing of the party never wins. If you sincerely believe that a NeoGAF thread is how to get a movement organized, I don't even know what to say.
ayyyyyyy
Not that I don't believe you, but can you present receipts for this claim? Because last I checked, Bernie has never really released a detailed version of his healthcare plan, only an outline at best (this is one of the reasons why his bills are never taken seriously in the Senate).
And even with that outline, it was determined that his plan WOULD raise taxes by several trillion dollars.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care
Look, I personally think universal healthcare WOULD be worth a tax increase. But pushing the idea that we could have that and pay less in taxes goes against the research I've done.
Found Hillary guys
jack_package_200
Banned
Damn son
Autoignition
Member
Damn, that's impressive. Just more proof that grassroots movements start at home, in the community.
jack_package_200
Banned
Weren't we also a top referrer of Bernie Sanders's website?
LizardKing
Member
Sorry I'm so late on this. Yes it raises taxes but that's offset by eliminating premiums...
Much more at the link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare#United_States
A thread isn't a movement.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's​ still a tax increase, even if people are paying less at the end of the day. Voters don't like tax increases. You can tell them that their premiums would be lower all you want, but I'm not sure the vast majority would buy that. All most will recognize is that they are having more money taken out of their paycheck for taxes.
And that they won't be able to keep their current healthcare plan. There's a lot of obstacles, even if most of them shouldn't be.
(A report from 91 isn't especially relevant today, either. I'd like to see updated numbers.)
LizardKing
Member
I added a quote from a 2008 study. The result is the same over the years, most say we would pay less, maybe significantly, maybe slightly. There's much more at the link. You're right people are paranoid about paying taxes but that's why it needs to be driven home that this is to save money. Republicans are good at shouting higher taxes though to drown out the caveat that it comes with eliminating premiums. I think if we get over that hump though people won't differentiate too much if their contribution from their paycheck towards health insurance is going to an insurance company or the government. Especially if they are paying less.
The way it's paid now though it's pretty well hidden that people are actually earning 8k more a year than they think, your employer is just putting that directly into your health insurance. Instead of that, it would just go to taxes, most likely being less.
I mean when you have even proponents of NHC thinking this will be a price hike, that is a problem. Republicans are winning on message once again.
Realistically, the only option we have for the immediate medium term future is a public option as a price control. Insurance companies make up far too much of our economy to be taken out of the equation quickly. Going straight to single payer makes absolutely zero economic sense, it'd cause a self inflicted recession or depression.
Back in the day that was the explicit purpose of the public option -- to make sure there was always the option of a government-run system to keep insurance companies in line, and to allow for a slow and careful transition towards the public option being the primary option, over enough time that the disruption to the health care system and to jobs could be managed.
JesseEwiak
Member
What are you going to tell a moderate suburban mom in Virginia or Colorado who voted for Obama and Hillary and is even supportive of a public option for poor people, but likes the health insurance she gets from her job, doesn't care if her taxes would be slightly lower than her current premiums, and doesn't want "worse coverage" (in her view) and have a longer wait time "because all kinds of people are going to rush in and go to the doctor for the first time in years."
That's why I prefer a plan originally pushed by Pete Stark back in 2006 - http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10899790/single-payer-americare
"You can think of the AmeriCare approach as a public option on steroids. It would create a new single-payer program called AmeriCare that would take on everyone ensured by Medicaid and SCHIP, and would automatically enroll all children at birth. It would pay the same rates to providers as Medicare, meaning it'd be considerably less generous to doctors and hospitals than private insurers.
AmeriCare involves cost sharing very similar to what you'd find in a private plan, but more affordable. There are deductibles ($350 for individuals, $500 for families), co-insurance (20 percent of spending above the deductible), an out-of-pocket spending cap ($2,500 for individuals, $4,000 for families), and premiums.
However, cost sharing would be sharply limited for low-income families. Individuals and families living on less than twice the poverty line ($48,500 for a family of four in 2015) wouldn't have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-insurance, and there would be premium subsidies and lower deductibles for people between two and three times the poverty line.
Here's the kicker: Employers could buy into the plan. They'd have to pay 80 percent of the premium, leaving 20 percent to employees, but it'd be an alternative every company got to their existing private plan."
EDIT : Also, another thing people forget and part of the reason why Obama had to use the "if you like your plan, you can keep it" is this -
People who already have insurance tend to like it. Upheaval of that is going to be a hard sell, no matter what.
LizardKing
Member
What are you going to tell a moderate suburban mom in Virginia or Colorado who voted for Obama and Hillary and is even supportive of a public option for poor people, but likes the health insurance she gets from her job, doesn't care if her taxes would be slightly lower than her current premiums, and doesn't want "worse coverage" (in her view) and have a longer wait time "because all kinds of people are going to rush in and go to the doctor for the first time in years."
That's why I prefer a plan originally pushed by Pete Stark back in 2006 - http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10899790/single-payer-americare
"You can think of the AmeriCare approach as a public option on steroids. It would create a new single-payer program called AmeriCare that would take on everyone ensured by Medicaid and SCHIP, and would automatically enroll all children at birth. It would pay the same rates to providers as Medicare, meaning it'd be considerably less generous to doctors and hospitals than private insurers.
AmeriCare involves cost sharing very similar to what you'd find in a private plan, but more affordable. There are deductibles ($350 for individuals, $500 for families), co-insurance (20 percent of spending above the deductible), an out-of-pocket spending cap ($2,500 for individuals, $4,000 for families), and premiums.
However, cost sharing would be sharply limited for low-income families. Individuals and families living on less than twice the poverty line ($48,500 for a family of four in 2015) wouldn't have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-insurance, and there would be premium subsidies and lower deductibles for people between two and three times the poverty line.
Here's the kicker: Employers could buy into the plan. They'd have to pay 80 percent of the premium, leaving 20 percent to employees, but it'd be an alternative every company got to their existing private plan."
EDIT : Also, another thing people forget and part of the reason why Obama had to use the "if you like your plan, you can keep it" is this -
People who already have insurance tend to like it. Upheaval of that is going to be a hard sell, no matter what.
Like I said previously the US healthcare system is consistently ranked as the worst healthcare in the western world. There is a myth perpetuated by the cheerleaders of this country that ours is the best,much like many other things that actually aren't. People are led to believe something that isn't true with the perceived lack of quality care in single payer systems. So change is scary to them and like I said Republicans win on messaging once again. If someone like you and your hypothetical person can't be sold on cheaper and better care then we are lost. And sure most might like their healthcare but most hate the cost. Public health insurance eliminates up to 20% of cost through eliminating overhead and profit margins (see link in my post above). That efficiency and savings is best achieved by single payer or a system close to it.
JesseEwiak
Member
And like I said, it's the worst because the unnsured are fucked over, but they're a somewhat small segment of the populace (20% pre-ACA). Since some of that 20% is young dumb people thinking they're invincible, that's only 15-17% actually uninsured who'd like insurance if they could afford it.
It's kind of like the NIMBY problem with housing - the correct policy is of course, build more dense housing in urban areas that will drive down prices. But, people who already have housing don't want their property values to go down.
Like I said, look at the poll - even if you throw out people already covered by basically single payer institutions (military, Medicare, Medicaid), union, normal health insurance, and even people who pay out of pocket for insurance still have nearly 70% satisfaction with how the health system is working.
Those are the people you need to convince that the entire health care industry that they're satisfied with needs to be overturned. That's why I prefer the plan outlined above, it's basically a frog being slowly boiled instead of a massive overturn.
LizardKing
Member
No, it's the worst among those who are insured and actually receive coverage. And also in efficiency. The problem with slowly boiling the pot is that people are hard to convince to reform something. You've explained why that is. So when they like a public option it will be even harder to convince them there can be something better and to change it yet again. People are dissatisfied with cost so you have a chance to change it, but the Republicans last week proved just how hard that is. The more times you want to change it to get to where you want to be, the less likely you will ever get there.
Here is an article demonstrating the inefficiencies in our system...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/u-s-health-care-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient
And overall care...
shinra-bansho
Member
Why does Canada have such awful healthcare.
JesseEwiak
Member
Moose.
Actually, it's probably because it's largely provincial-run, so crappy provinces can cheap out on care and access in a variety of ways while still offering "universal health care."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked