-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT6| Have You Hurd About These GOP Retirements?
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
This, combined with your profile banner, makes for an interesting picture.
Maximum trolling: PoliERA editionFuuuuuuuuu
If only having terrible latin american foreign policy was as taboo as being antivax.
I don't like anti-vax, but US imperialism has done far more harm to humanity than it has.
I just remember wondering why everyone was joking about Al Gore inventing the internet, and then learning that our government is actually terrible and democracy is a lie after Bush v Gore in the supreme court. I had no idea which one I wanted to be president, but democracy is kinda an easy to understand and import thing that I thought this country stood for.
Because a lot of people are happy with their insurance and do not want to give it up. It's not going to just be "lobby money" coming out against a Medicare option that makes it impossible slash illegal to have private health insurance. It's going to literally be all sides. It's going to be soccer moms and dads who are quite happy with their insurance and don't want to give it up for some unknown plan with promises that "no for real, everything is going to be covered we promise!" It's going to be folks with chronic illnesses (like my son) who have things perfectly sorted out with the insurance and have no interest whatsoever in gambling on losing coverage for treatments. It's going to be hospitals who literally cannot survive on medicare reimbursement rates alone. It's going to be AARP who is, rightly or wrongly, hesitant to massive structural changes to medicare. It's going to be the millions of folks who work in the health insurance industry who don't want to lose their jobs. Then you have the folks who don't want their taxes to go up, no matter how much folks try to waive it away with "But no for real you'll be paying less we promise, just trust us!" You're talking about a plan that would uproot a third of the US economy. The knives are going to come from every fucking place you can possibly imagine. And there's no reason to literally pick a fight with every single opposition group, when something like Medicare for America is a perfectly valid option to getting to universal coverage AND negating a lot of the potential opposition to ripping up people's insurance. A multi-payer system is not intrinsically evil or something. Why so many on the left are married to this one very specific definition of universal coverage eludes me.
Serious question: do we know that people really are happy with their healthcare coverage, vs. being "happy" enough they have access to what they need in part because they're currently not very sick and currently not draining their financial resources?
Yes.
70% of folks with private health insurance are happy with their healthcare coverage. Those with Medicare/Medicaid are slightly happier, it's true, but those on private insurance rate their quality of their healthcare 6 points higher than those on medicare/medicaid.
This idea that everyone hates their health insurance, and are secretly just praying that they can get single payer isn't reality. My family uses a heck of a lot of healthcare. My oldest son has a chronic health issue that would bankrupt us within a month, if not sooner. However, we're very happy with our coverage. As someone who has had to "fight" both private insurance and Medicare for coverage, gimme the private insurer every day of the week.
Oh, it's definitely the latter. I have pretty good coverage and even that is kind of a pain in the ass, even to someone like me who deals with employee benefits in my job and knows more than 99% of the population. I can't imagine how much of a PITA it is for people who don't have the same kind of knowledge I do. Oh wait, I actually can, because I frequently have coworkers coming to me with complaints about how much of a goddamn pain in the ass our employee insurance is (not the same insurance I have as I get mine through my husband's employer, since I work part time at my job and ain't eligible). And this is gold-plated shit, where the employee only has to pay 30% of the premium, and the company pays for literally everything else, including deductibles and the out of pocket max.
And yet, I still bet most of my coworkers would be against mandatory M4A. Republicans truly succeeded in making government benefits the boogeyman. For example, here in MA they're starting government-run paid family and medical leave. For up to around .5% of your paycheck depending on how much your employer contributes and your pay, you get decent paid family and medical leave benefits for up to 20 weeks when you need it starting in 2021. Up to $850/week for something that costs only a couple hundred dollars a year for most people. And I had people bitching about this. Most of whom make over $150k, one who makes over $400k.
Last edited:
I think the whole "people like their insurance and want to keep it" line of argument is pretty unconvincing.
For one, people don't care as much about what their specific insurance plan and company are, they care about being able to see the doctors they want, at a price they are able to afford it.
And employer sponsored insurance isn't something you can choose to keep in a ton of circumstances anyway! Every year your plan changes, all at the whim of your employer. And if you lose your job then you're screwed.
Every year in America more than 50 million adults (ages 18-64) go without insurance for some portion of the year
Under a single payer system none of that would happen
For one, people don't care as much about what their specific insurance plan and company are, they care about being able to see the doctors they want, at a price they are able to afford it.
And employer sponsored insurance isn't something you can choose to keep in a ton of circumstances anyway! Every year your plan changes, all at the whim of your employer. And if you lose your job then you're screwed.
Every year in America more than 50 million adults (ages 18-64) go without insurance for some portion of the year
Under a single payer system none of that would happen
Under the Medicare for America system it wouldn't happen either! And if you don't like your private insurance, you can switch to the Medicare program. It gives consumers the choice to figure out what works best for them and their family.
But, like, there is verifiable data that says that the vast majority of people are happy with their private insurance and the healthcare they receive.
But, like, there is verifiable data that says that the vast majority of people are happy with their private insurance and the healthcare they receive.
I just finished watching First Man. I'm reminded of the phrase, "We choose to do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard." I've never heard of anybody being happy with their insurance Nobody likes their rates always going up, their benefits going down, having to work out who's in network and who isn't, dealing with insurance company bureaucracy, having an army of lawyers between you and your care, the uncertainty of wondering if they'll cover something or not, the fact that you lose insurance if you lose your job, that job shopping in part includes checking out their health insurance, having to pay your own COBRA if you get laid off, and so on. You mentioned your own case. I'm sure you're worried about what might happen if the Republicans get their way and kill the ACA without a backup plan, and something happens and you lose your job (recession e.g.), and your son has a pre-existing condition. You shouldn't need to be worried about that.
I'm sure private insurance will still be here, just like it is in Europe. It'll be much smaller than now, and I say good riddance, as there's no benefit to us paying for insurer profits and lawyers working to try and screw us. Remember your work health insurance isn't free either. The employer pays the bulk of it and they see that as part of your overall compensation, that you aren't getting as salary. That's effectively a tax you're already paying, averaging about $5,700 for a single worker, more for a family they're covering. That's about 10% of the median household income going to health insurance, which doesn't even cover the full costs of actually needing to use it. It's a terrible system.
Again, there is hard data evidence to prove that people do, in fact, like their private coverage. As someone who has had to fight with private insurance and Medicare (for my mother), neither is pleasurable, but I have had a ton more positive experience dealing with our private insurer than having to fight with medicare. The idea that all the bureaucracy will just disappear if we just go to a single payer system isn't reality, nor is the idea that everything under the sun is going to be covered. Like I said, several of my son's drugs are not covered by ANY medicare plan, nor would they be covered by the NHS (our one physician is British and comes here a few times a year). And, sure, I worry about Republicans gutting the ACA, which is why I support both the ACA and something like Medicare for America. If there really is an appetite like yall think for a singer payer option, then let's do Medicare for America and let it bury private insurance. If it's so much more preferable, and honestly covers everything like people pretend it will, it'll end the appetite for private insurance very quickly.
Bernie's plan specifically outlaws private health insurance btw.
Bernie's plan specifically outlaws private health insurance btw.
I'm happy with what we currently have, relative to losing our doctor to concierge practice, four rate hikes, a restructure closer to a HSA-type arrangement, and a layoff, having to pay COBRA for months,and (fortunately) new hire. In that time my wife was just about discriminated against because of gender, costing her thousands more which private nor medicare would make a difference. We fortunately don't need the high-priced epipens or other costly self-administered doses. My dad was well taken care of on Medicare plus good supplemental, but had he lived longer the facility costs would have drained everything.
So I was happy for my family to have access, but not happy beyond that, and in a state of worry more often than not.
IMO Obama did a lot of damage with the "you like your doctor, you can keep it" reductive sell and overall description of the healthcare system. Sure, it didn't piss off people who greatly benefit, or don't participate, or sell prescriptions, but it completely sidestepped the issues with the system participants and beneficiaries, while exposing an ever-present danger made more likely to come to be - "you could lose access to your doctor".
So I was happy for my family to have access, but not happy beyond that, and in a state of worry more often than not.
IMO Obama did a lot of damage with the "you like your doctor, you can keep it" reductive sell and overall description of the healthcare system. Sure, it didn't piss off people who greatly benefit, or don't participate, or sell prescriptions, but it completely sidestepped the issues with the system participants and beneficiaries, while exposing an ever-present danger made more likely to come to be - "you could lose access to your doctor".
You are missing that current medicare benefits are often worse than employer provided insurance. That's the actual issue- people getting far less benefits under Medicare than they get from their current plans that they barely see the true cost of because the cost is hidden away by their employers. Everyone had sticker shock from the exchanges for a reason.
Again, what does it mean to like your private coverage? We're never going to get an honest assessment of this because people aren't stopping to think about what that actually means. Do they like their private coverage because they like their doctor, have an ER close by, and have dental/eyecare covered too? Do they like it because they largely don't have to deal with their insurance? Or is it because they genuinely think that the private coverage is better than what the medicare bill proposes which is medicare plus an expansion that now includes dental, eyecare, lets you keep your doctor, etc...? Are they comparing it to current medicare which does not cover as much as it would in the proposed bill?
I would guess it means, "I received good care when I needed it and my out of pocket costs were small." They don't factor in that the employer portion of the costs is what the employer considers part of the total comp package, and is effectively a high tax already being paid. I understand there's fear of change, but the current system is garbage and not likely to get better, and people often forget how close they are to bankruptcy especially if the Republicans finally get their way. Imagine how many people would be financially destroyed by now if McCain had voted to repeal and we had a recession.
When we say that private insurance coverage is often better than baseline medicare, we are not exaggerating or being disingenuous. You mention "Medicare Plus" plans - there's a reason so many seniors are purchasing those on the private market and it's not because they love base Medicare so much. Many private employer-provided insurance plans have much better benefits than base Medicare and that effectively creates a gap/cliff when people retire (which the Plus plans fill for some.)
You misunderstand. It's not a high tax being paid, it's a paid benefit to the employee. It's an invisible part of their income. My HC cost my company ~6K in premiums last year.
That's pretty fucking scary that all of those red states have all of that power.
It's a shame that so many states are trash fire states and no one wants to live in them. The power trip in the senate towards Republicans is really something that Democrats have done to themselves by packing into so few states and allowing for Repulican control of the senate to just kind of happen without much of a fight.
It's a shame that so many states are trash fire states and no one wants to live in them. The power trip in the senate towards Republicans is really something that Democrats have done to themselves by packing into so few states and allowing for Repulican control of the senate to just kind of happen without much of a fight.
You're taking it too literally. It's a reduction in income (employee and/or employer) due to that expense.
It's scary that this ad wasn't made to be ironic.
it doesn't even make sense. a pure popular vote would ensure that they have the same voice as everyone else. The electoral college gives them an outsize voice. The votes of millions straight up don't count for shit in the end and candidates only even pretend otherwise for fundraising events
What does campaigning look like in a popular vote? Republicans spending in connie friendly big cities like San diego?
The founding fathers came up with the 3/5ths compromise for a reason.
That may be so, not sure - my interest lies more in what the article actually says, which seems to deviate from the wording of the tweet. I assume you have read the article? Which countries are covered in the study?
Last edited:
I take issue with the phrasing "happy with their insurance."
I have car, house, life, and health insurance. I'm not happy with them. They're simply a fact of my life as someone who has had a lot of car issues, had multiple surgeries before I was 7, own a home, and will someday die. There's nothing to be happy with; I'm human and these things mean some of my human travails are covered.
The question should be if people are "satisfied" with their insurance. Satisfaction implies a sense of comfort that I have those things, can (barely) afford them, and they're their in the case of unfortuitous events.
I have car, house, life, and health insurance. I'm not happy with them. They're simply a fact of my life as someone who has had a lot of car issues, had multiple surgeries before I was 7, own a home, and will someday die. There's nothing to be happy with; I'm human and these things mean some of my human travails are covered.
The question should be if people are "satisfied" with their insurance. Satisfaction implies a sense of comfort that I have those things, can (barely) afford them, and they're their in the case of unfortuitous events.
This is not my beautiful house.
This is not my beautiful wife.
This is not my beautiful insurance.
This is not my beautiful wife.
This is not my beautiful insurance.
It's important to understand the difference though. Taxes are paid by the employee to the government. Insurance benefits are paid from the company to the employee as untaxed income- the current structure can't be 1:1 replaced with taxation because if you cut that requirement you're effectively cutting wages for a large number of people.
It's scary that this ad wasn't made to be ironic.
So by that logic, the giant blue morass of states merges into one Pangaea-like state with equal reps as LA County.
California and New York are basically the culture capitals of the US and both soundly reject their world view. They want cultural power; their ideals to be enshrined in our moves, books, TV, and music; but they can't get that so they have to devalue it somehow.
Too add onto B-Dubs it enables them to also ignore the needs of large population centers which continues to funnel their votes directly to republicans who, even though they're a minority, still manage to win elections because of the distribution of senate seats and how the Electoral College functions.
Or factual. It's very misleading.
It's scary that this ad wasn't made to be ironic.
I was only ever happy because I was insured under my mom, until she lost her job. When I got my first and wanted to be covered, she always told me that I don't need it because I'm paying for something I don't need because I'm healthy and how she had to pay over $100 every other week. But as of last month that wasn't the case and my employers doesn't offer the same coverage to part timers which won"t help in my situation.
My mom now pays $37 a week and covers everything including car insurance in her new job. I guess she fits in the whole "Happy with their insurance agenda."
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to require employers to add how much they pay for the employees' health insurance as a line item on pay stubs? It might help to expose more people to the actual cost of their health care. Anecdotally, people seem to think it's just the costs borne by themselves. Having a greater awareness of the cost might help to show people that we're already paying for it and that it's part of their compensation.
I think the point is that people think they're happy (as evidenced by the data) so convincing them to change takes that much more effort. Obama got lie of the year for telling people they wouldn't have to switch from their catastrophe plans to basic coverage.
I think part of the problem is that most of the insured and underinsured are like poor people who vote disproportionately less. And people who do vote and for whom this is a third rail are old people. Who vote a lot.
I think the goal just needs to be to have a reasonable alternative that you can make your signature issue that kills the gop at the polls. Oh and like helps people.
I think part of the problem is that most of the insured and underinsured are like poor people who vote disproportionately less. And people who do vote and for whom this is a third rail are old people. Who vote a lot.
I think the goal just needs to be to have a reasonable alternative that you can make your signature issue that kills the gop at the polls. Oh and like helps people.
Sorry, I don't get employer health coverage, so maybe my understanding is off, but I'm suggesting a line item, like social security or medicare on a regular pay stub, not just an accounting of the costs yearly on a W-2.
I get it. Having the costs shown more frequently makes them more visible. But I'm just saying it's already there if you look. But no one looks except for me because I'm crazy.
Yeah, I understand, but if your end goal is to shift to a MFA system, giving everyone a constant reminder of what their actual costs are every month might not be a bad idea. It certainly would help if there was a more widespread understanding of what plans actually cost when debating the costs of alternatives. I don't think there would be as much support (those "happy" with their insurance) for existing plans if people knew how much they actually cost and saw that as a line item on their paycheck.
Day that ends in y or something unusual even for him?
Edit: Oh, he's doing a Greatest Hits collection.
Last edited:
- Status