• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
Like, you're not gonna convince people that barely tune in that private insurance elimination is a good idea. It's very easy to convince them of a public option. A public option would basically be incredibly simple to set up in such a way that it instantly has 60% of the market because of where people are at with insurance now with the other 40% controlled by a bunch of individual insurance companies that have their voice split into little pieces. A public option would basically run the table and insurance companies would be doomed to be only relevant in niche situations in the long term, which means you effectively have medicare for all, but it's actually popular and doesn't cause nearly as much problems with people losing jobs instantly. All while making a public option free for those in certain income brackets and make it so people can't be kicked off for non-payment like in the Netherlands.

There's nothing disappointing about that.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,683
I think there is still time to sell the ideas when more people are paying attention.
But if those people start paying attention, they'll probably vote against the things you want! My point was that studies show that non-voters aren't some great mass of untapped leftists, or even liberal Democrats. They probably won't be persuaded to support the policies you like because - wait for it - they have some questionable views on race and probably bristle at minorities getting help.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,478
I think my chief worry with a Public Option is that if it winds up just being a giant national cobra like pool where employers just dump all the sick folks.
Then later republicans starve and rescind it.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,683
It's more sad than anything, but kind of funny. I can't imagine that there's a Democratic apparatus outside of the Chicagoland area (including South Bend) and Indianapolis.
A red state voted really red in an overwhelmingly red year.

Indiana 2008 was the flukiest of flukes. Obama spent ungodly money there and had a lot of spillover from the Illinois media market into Indiana and still only won by 1% during a financial crisis.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
Public option is MUCH MUCH better than what we currently have. If it is implemented well then it will slowly phase out private insurance over time or make them less relevant in health care.

That said you can't expect candidates like Biden or Buttiegeg to stand firmly behind a good public plan option when things get rough and big companies start waving their money around. Compromise candidates will compromise when push comes to shove.. it's their feature and brand.

We don't have a strong enough moderate candidate (more moderate than Warren/Sanders but not Bennet tier) making the case and standing as firmly behind public option as Warren/Sanders standing behind M4A. You already know most of these candidates are holding their finger up in the air and feeling which way the wind is blowing. If more than 50-60% of voters supported M4A then these candidates would have been backing that too. It's predictable half assed politics.
 

Chrome Hyena

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,724
I'm real tired of this line of thought that people love their private insurance companies. I hate mine. I pay 600 dollars a month for my gold plan insurance. If I can get away with getting similar insurance for a few hundred dollars a month extra on taxes hell YES I will take it. I don't give a damn about the company after all, fuck them. The only thing I care about is my doctor.

Yet moderates and conservatives keep thinking people love their private insurance. They don't.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
I think my chief worry with a Public Option is that if it winds up just being a giant national cobra like pool where employers just dump all the sick folks.
Then later republicans starve and rescind it.
If you combine the people from medicare into the public option, then it will become as entrenched as a lobby as medicare.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,478
What really bothers me about my private insurance being that my husband and I do not use much healthcare services at present is that the premiums we pay are going into the pool and a gross margin of that money is NOT going towards other people’s care. The overhead in profits, bonuses, advertising CEO compensation is amoral and repugnant.
 

VectorPrime

Member
Apr 4, 2018
10,130
Nate Silver is really doubling down on Twitter that Biden is still in a strong position and that people are really foolish to keep writing him off
 

lmcfigs

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,613
Public option is MUCH MUCH better than what we currently have. If it is implemented well then it will slowly phase out private insurance over time or make them less relevant in health care.

That said you can't expect candidates like Biden or Buttiegeg to stand firmly behind a good public plan option when things get rough and big companies start waving their money around. Compromise candidates will compromise when push comes to shove.. it's their feature and brand.

We don't have a strong enough moderate candidate (more moderate than Warren/Sanders but not Bennet tier) making the case and standing as firmly behind public option as Warren/Sanders standing behind M4A. You already know most of these candidates are holding their finger up in the air and feeling which way the wind is blowing. If more than 50-60% of voters supported M4A then these candidates would have been backing that too. It's predictable half assed politics.
Right. I think probably it’ll end up looking like, “public option for all who want it over the age of 55, with means tested... “ like idk. I don’t think most of these candidates have a credible belief.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
I'm real tired of this line of thought that people love their private insurance companies. I hate mine. I pay 600 dollars a month for my gold plan insurance. If I can get away with getting similar insurance for a few hundred dollars a month extra on taxes hell YES I will take it. I don't give a damn about the company after all, fuck them. The only thing I care about is my doctor.

Yet moderates and conservatives keep thinking people love their private insurance. They don't.
There is evidence that people are satisfied with their current insurance- those that have it, at least.

You wouldn’t know it to read most of the news coverage, or to listen to politicians, but that is one of the more consistent results in health-care polling: Over and over again, roughly 7 out of every 10 Americans report that they’re fairly satisfied with the quality of their personal coverage.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the incoming Congress prepares to debate further changes to the U.S. healthcare system, solid majorities of Americans rate the coverage (69%) and quality (80%) of the healthcare they personally receive as "excellent" or "good." By contrast, Americans are much less positive about healthcare in the U.S. in general, with a bare majority rating the quality of U.S. healthcare positively (55%) and about a third giving positive reviews to U.S. healthcare coverage (34%).
WASHINGTON – A new survey released by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) demonstrates the critical importance of employer provided health coverage to American workers. The results showed 71% of Americans are satisfied with their current employer-provided health coverage. Further, 56% indicated coverage remains a key factor in their choice to stay at their current job.
Large majorities of people ARE satisfied with their personal insurance coverage. They're less confident about the state of everyone ELSE'S coverage, specifically those people that don't have any, or go bankrupt when an unusual bill hits.

but that's really missing the point. The point is that people (especially old people, who vote disproportionately) are resistant to change, and do not like the unknown. So The Devil You Know is always going to be preferable to The Devil You Don't.

Campaigning on eliminating what they are used to and overwhelmingly satisfied with in favor of a new system is always going to be a losing proposition.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
Right. I think probably it’ll end up looking like, “public option for all who want it over the age of 55, with means tested... “ like idk. I don’t think most of these candidates have a credible belief.
I don't see that at all. The only, only, only reason Obama didn't get a public option was because of Lieberman being a shit and Ted Kennedy dying. And even fucking Joe Manchin is good with a public option.

That being said, I think it's more than likely that getting rid of the filibuster will be impossible, which will wreck even that over 55 means tested shit. There's always budget reconciliation, though.
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,820
I'm real tired of this line of thought that people love their private insurance companies. I hate mine. I pay 600 dollars a month for my gold plan insurance. If I can get away with getting similar insurance for a few hundred dollars a month extra on taxes hell YES I will take it. I don't give a damn about the company after all, fuck them. The only thing I care about is my doctor.

Yet moderates and conservatives keep thinking people love their private insurance. They don't.
That's not what the statistics show. But I do think people take the wrong ideas from the stats.

Most Americans rate their personal coverage and care positively. And the demographic breakdown is what you would think it is.

Most U.S. subgroups rate the quality of the healthcare they receive better than they rate their coverage -- though ratings of both are highest among U.S. adults aged 65 and older. With most adults in this group qualifying for Medicare, nearly nine in 10 senior citizens rate both their care and coverage positively.

Positive ratings of both quality and coverage increase with age: Young adults have the lowest average ratings for both measures, and seniors offer the highest ratings. Perceptions are also related to income: The higher the income bracket, the more likely an individual is to rate their healthcare quality and coverage positively. Meanwhile, whites maintain higher ratings than nonwhites on each element of healthcare.
Most Americans view the American healthcare system poorly, however. Meaning the public is very open to change.

In my view, nationalized healthcare could be one of those winning issues in the blue areas and losing issues in the new "battleground" areas.

I would expect Warren to modify her language (without changing her message or intention) accordingly, and Sanders to never stray off message. That scares me in the context of a general election with regards to Sanders.

 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,478
Also over a decade ago I worked in a call center for Highmark Blue Cross Blue Sheild and employees were crying literally everyday because they are the heat shield between a person needing coverage for payment for their cancer treatment and being told No by their insurer. I would not say that these people love their employers either.

I was lucky enough to get stationed in a department that only fielded calls from Doctors office staff so it wasn’t as personal.

The amount of overhead saying “No” creates is immoral and financially wasteful.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
Also over a decade ago I worked in a call center for Highmark Blue Cross Blue Sheild and employees were crying literally everyday because they are the heat shield between a person needing coverage for payment for their cancer treatment and being told No by their insurer. I would not say that these people love their employers either.

I was lucky enough to get stationed in a department that only fielded calls from Doctors office staff so it wasn’t as personal.
Oh, absolutely people that actually end up in a situation where they absolutely need their insurance and don't get it hate it. And that happens often. But the people that aren't put in that situation likely aren't pissed at their personal insurance, especially if they get it through their employer.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
I'm real tired of this line of thought that people love their private insurance companies. I hate mine. I pay 600 dollars a month for my gold plan insurance. If I can get away with getting similar insurance for a few hundred dollars a month extra on taxes hell YES I will take it. I don't give a damn about the company after all, fuck them. The only thing I care about is my doctor.

Yet moderates and conservatives keep thinking people love their private insurance. They don't.
No one likes their private insurance. But its hard for them to fathom something better than what they already have since this is now the norm for them. It's like being in an abusive relationship and thinking you cant get better so you stay in the relationship.

Also there is definitely a level of rascism/classism involved in people wanting to keep their private insurance and not have a good public option. They don't want the poors and the blacks to have the same "good" coverage as they do. Having something over your fellow citizen is addicting for folks.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,194
I'm real tired of this line of thought that people love their private insurance companies. I hate mine. I pay 600 dollars a month for my gold plan insurance. If I can get away with getting similar insurance for a few hundred dollars a month extra on taxes hell YES I will take it. I don't give a damn about the company after all, fuck them. The only thing I care about is my doctor.

Yet moderates and conservatives keep thinking people love their private insurance. They don't.
The data provided to you already indicates that most people are pretty happy with their private insurance. But, if you dislike yours, I fully 100% support you having the choice of either a public option or private insurance. I want to keep my private insurance, because I both like it and it covers exactly what I need/want. Giving the voters a choice really isn't a bad thing.

Also, remember, no doctor is required to take Medicare/Medicaid/Public Option. A lot of doctors do not because the reimbursement rates are so low. A doctor cannot be forced to take Medicare, so your doctor who you love may decide he or she doesn't wish to see anyone who won't private pay or keep private insurance.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
The data provided to you already indicates that most people are pretty happy with their private insurance. But, if you dislike yours, I fully 100% support you having the choice of either a public option or private insurance. I want to keep my private insurance, because I both like it and it covers exactly what I need/want. Giving the voters a choice really isn't a bad thing.

Also, remember, no doctor is required to take Medicare/Medicaid/Public Option. A lot of doctors do not because the reimbursement rates are so low. A doctor cannot be forced to take Medicare, so your doctor who you love may decide he or she doesn't wish to see anyone who won't private pay or keep private insurance.
I think that a public option should come with a caveat that you can't accept private insurance if you don't accept the public option, personally. Payment schemes definitely need adjustment.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
The data provided to you already indicates that most people are pretty happy with their private insurance. But, if you dislike yours, I fully 100% support you having the choice of either a public option or private insurance. I want to keep my private insurance, because I both like it and it covers exactly what I need/want. Giving the voters a choice really isn't a bad thing.

Also, remember, no doctor is required to take Medicare/Medicaid/Public Option. A lot of doctors do not because the reimbursement rates are so low. A doctor cannot be forced to take Medicare, so your doctor who you love may decide he or she doesn't wish to see anyone who won't private pay or keep private insurance.
Is this going to change under new public option or not?

If not then public option is going to be garbage.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
If doctors/hospitals can still turn away patients with public option then honestly nuke this shit from orbit.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,194
Is this going to change under new public option or not?

If not then public option is going to be garbage.
Warren's plan called for an increase in reimbusrement rates, but we need to do that no matter. However, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement works because of private insurance. So, Medicare/Medicaid currently reimbusrses about 80% of the cost of care. That is, doctors tend to lose money on Medicare/Medicaid patients. When I was a low vision specialist (I was an optician, so not a doctor but I was licensed and could get reimbusrsements), our office lost money on each patient I saw. The way we made that up was those with private insurance. We were reimbursed at a higher rate, even when you take into account the 20% Medicare patients are supposed to contribute. As long as private insurance is still a thing, current reimbursements are sufficient to keep the whole thing going. We can then work on fixing Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Also, there is no law that would require a medical provider to see medicare/medicaid patients. That would be wholly illegal/unconstitutional. In the US, almost all doctors are in private practice. They have the right to opt in/opt out of taking any insurance they want. You cannot mandate they HAVE to accept a certain reimbursement structure as part of being doctors.

Also, hospitals would, of course, want to accept public option/medicare/medicaid patients. However, the way in which they can afford to run is based on higher reimbursement rates for those with private insurance. You would have hospitals that would have to absolutely cut services, staff or other things if they were wholly dependent upon the current reimbursement structure. Some more rural hospitals would run the risk of closing entirely.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
Then this changes literally nothing. I am already a doctor who does not take medicare/Medicaid (because why would I) and with a public option I will continue not to take those patients. I have had to deny health care on long time patients because their insurance changed.

I guess the only thing that will change is that with more people on a public option, it becomes worse/harder for you in terms of patient volume to deny coverage. But specialists won't ever take public options which means Endocrinologists who handle diabetic cases. And that means Insulin costs are still going to be sky high for some patients.

Medicare reimbursement HAVE to go up no matter what.
 

TheAbsolution

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,738
Atlanta, GA
One of the things that would definitely help mitigate losses in 2022 is nationwide voting reform. Put as much helpful and needed shit in there as possible. Also, fixing the gutted VRA would be super helpful as well.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,628

When Trump gets done with retweeting Stu Varney, Lee Zaldin, and presidental harrassment, I wonder if he will tweet something to this effect.
 

Dr.Acula

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,618
I feel kinda guilty posting in here on the issue of health care as a Canadian, because I don't want to come off as gloating, but I just want to affirm some of the things that are beneficial in a "single-payer" system (that specific terminology isn't used here, we generally refer to our system as "universal healthcare").

I have never heard of anyone being refused care because they were not "covered," and I have never heard of anyone not being able to afford treatment or surgery.

Dental and vision are not covered publicly, they are out of pocket, many jobs do offer employees dental/vision plans.

Medication is heavily subsidized but not free. I'd occasionally pick up medication for my grandparents/parents, stuff like arthritis or blood pressure meds, and they come to $2-$3 dollars to fill.

There is a big problem with medication and it's the subject the occasional national story. Sometimes, a person has a rare illness and it can only be treated by a drug that is manufactured solely in the US or abroad, and if it's experimental and not recognized in Canada, or is suddenly "delisted" in Canada, then it can cost Canadians tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course it's the same for Americans, but it's jarring for Canadians to see someone having to mortgage their home or set up crowdfunding for their meds.

Wait times vary from a week+ to see a specialist to a couple of months for surgery or an MRI. Seeing a GP or going to emerg can have you get an initial diagnosis and referral or emergency treatment/surgery withing hours though. Those are my personal experiences for myself and my family.

I don't know anyone that wants a private system. We have wait times and a crowded system, but that's not a function of health care being tax funded, that's a function of there being more people needed care than people providing care, and there's always going to be a gap because there are only so many people capable of providing care because of the high high standards for being a medical professional. You can't hire doctors like they're low-skill labour.

Plus there are other procedures that are limited because of scarcity. If you're on dialysis and need a kidney, well, all the money in the world isn't gonna make a kidney just show up.

All private insurance would do is kick low, and eventually middle-income people to the back of the line for surgery and transplants as the rich people buy their way into the operating theatre, and most people are aware enough to realise that they'll end up on the short end of the stick.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
I feel kinda guilty posting in here on the issue of health care as a Canadian, because I don't want to come off as gloating, but I just want to affirm some of the things that are beneficial in a "single-payer" system (that specific terminology isn't used here, we generally refer to our system as "universal healthcare").

I have never heard of anyone being refused care because they were not "covered," and I have never heard of anyone not being able to afford treatment or surgery.

Dental and vision are not covered publicly, they are out of pocket, many jobs do offer employees dental/vision plans.

Medication is heavily subsidized but not free. I'd occasionally pick up medication for my grandparents/parents, stuff like arthritis or blood pressure meds, and they come to $2-$3 dollars to fill.

There is a big problem with medication and it's the subject the occasional national story. Sometimes, a person has a rare illness and it can only be treated by a drug that is manufactured solely in the US or abroad, and if it's experimental and not recognized in Canada, or is suddenly "delisted" in Canada, then it can cost Canadians tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course it's the same for Americans, but it's jarring for Canadians to see someone having to mortgage their home or set up crowdfunding for their meds.

Wait times vary from a week+ to see a specialist to a couple of months for surgery or an MRI. Seeing a GP or going to emerg can have you get an initial diagnosis and referral or emergency treatment/surgery withing hours though. Those are my personal experiences for myself and my family.

I don't know anyone that wants a private system. We have wait times and a crowded system, but that's not a function of health care being tax funded, that's a function of there being more people needed care than people providing care, and there's always going to be a gap because there are only so many people capable of providing care because of the high high standards for being a medical professional. You can't hire doctors like they're low-skill labour.

Plus there are other procedures that are limited because of scarcity. If you're on dialysis and need a kidney, well, all the money in the world isn't gonna make a kidney just show up.

All private insurance would do is kick low, and eventually middle-income people to the back of the line for surgery and transplants as the rich people buy their way into the operating theatre, and most people are aware enough to realise that they'll end up on the short end of the stick.
I come from a 3rd world country originally and the healthcare system there is far more affordable and less complicated than what they got here in the US. It's a total scam and represents the height of capital greed and moral bankruptcy. I have also practiced as a doctor in both countries. I am practicing in US as a doctor because I make at least twice as much money here than anywhere else (more actually).

Also the doctors lobby system in Us very tightly controls the amount of doctors we can make. Very strict medical school entrance followed by limited medical student seats and then rigorous licensure exam and residency. This again is not as big of an issue in other countries, my previous country produces a ton of doctors. There should definitely be a high barrier of entry to being a doctor but not this stringent. The lobbyists say it's to keep the prestige of being a doctor high but on reality it's to control supply and demand. Even a mediocre doctor in the US is flooded with patients which means they can dictate the market and deny particular patients health care.
 

RustyNails

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,053
India's rightwing March continues.

Background: in 1992, Hindu extremists demolished Babri Mosque, a 14th century mosque erected by Mughal emperor Babur (or during his reign) in the town of Ayodhya. The Hindu extremists claim that Babur destroyed a revered Hindu holy site: a temple devoted to Hindu God Ram's birth place. Since 92 and more recently since 2010, the case has been litigated in courts. Hindu extremists have made a makeshift temple on top of the site since the demolition. Today India Supreme Court said Hindus have a right to build a real temple on the place where Babri Masjid once stood.

Pic from pre-destruction


 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,683
Thank you for sharing this straight-up bigoted video in this thread. You've really edified us all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.