Employer Provided Insurance: THIRTY THREE MILLION Americans Won't Be Worrying About Losing It Anymore

Biden/Klobuchar is a great ticket.  Love it.

sbenois said:

Biden/Klobuchar is a great ticket.  Love it.

I like Biden / Abrams. Any of the candidates mentioned would be a great choice, but I would love a woman of color from the south that is younger than 50.

PVW said:

FWIW, Klobuchar was one of the NYT's endorsees.

I don't think Warren is in serious consideration for VP. Given that, I'd be curious who Klinker thinks is both a plausible choice for Biden and someone who would be more acceptable to voters who strongly identify as progressive.

 I think Warren is the obvious choice.  Bernie doesn't want it and is too old. If Biden's strategy in any way relies on progressives supporting him, Amy K would be electoral suicide. Stacy Abrams name gets bandied about quite a bit.  I think would bring a lot to the position but, given the likelihood Biden would not serve out an entire term, her lack of experience is concerning.

sbenois said:

Biden/Klobuchar is a great ticket.  Love it.

 I'm sure the Trump team loves it as well.

Klinker said:

 I think Warren is the obvious choice.  Bernie doesn't want it and is too old. If Biden's strategy in any way relies on progressives supporting him, Amy K would be electoral suicide. Stacy Abrams name gets bandied about quite a bit.  I think would bring a lot to the position but, given the likelihood Biden would not serve out an entire term, her lack of experience is concerning.

Abrams served in the Georgia House of Representatives for 10 years, and then essentially tied a run for Governor in Georgia (note: in the US political system the rule is: if two candidates tie or are close in the popular vote, the republican wins).

Warren served in US Senate for 7 years, and then dropped out of the race for Democratic nominee for US President (note: not even close).

I would love to see Warren as VP or in the cabinet, but then i think, no, she's needed in the Senate.  Also, isn't the governor of Mass a Republican? (and would he have the power to name her replacement?)

basil said:

Abrams served in the Georgia House of Representatives for 10 years, and then essentially tied a run for Governor in Georgia (note: in the US political system the rule is: if two candidates tie or are close in the popular vote, the republican wins).

Warren served in US Senate for 7 years, and then dropped out of the race for Democratic nominee for US President (note: not even close).

 I'm not casting any shade on Abrams, there is just a substantial difference between being one of 180 people helping to run the State of Georgia and being a US Senator.  I think Abrams might be a great VP and almost certainly would be a strong Presidential candidate in years to come but the lack of national experience is concerning, especially given the likelihood that Biden's VP will become President under less than optimal conditions.

Klinker said:

I'm not casting any shade on Abrams, there is just a substantial difference between being one of 180 people helping to run the State of Georgia and being a US Senator.

For the record, she was the Georgia House’s Democratic leader for six and a half years.

DaveSchmidt said:

For the record, she was the Georgia House’s Democratic leader for six and a half years.

 Do you think that is sufficient preparation to be the POTUS?  I mean, obviously she is more qualified than the pathetic excuse for a human being who is currently staining that office but "more experienced  than Trump" is a low bar. 

Again, I like Abrams I just wonder about her experience. Experience or no experience, I would certainly prefer her to Amy K.

Klinker said:

Again, I like Abrams I just wonder about her experience.

I’ve wondered enough about her experience to ask PVW a question about it earlier. This time, to add to the discussion, I was simply pointing out that for several years Abrams was more than just one of 180.

You know, it's really, really rare to have a candidate that's actually "qualified" to be Prez. Biden probably is. Hillary certainly was.

Was Obama "qualified"? Hardly.  George W.?  Nope. Were any of this year's Dem candidates other than Biden actually qualified? 

Does a Senate career make you qualified to run a country? How? A member of the House? How?

Governor's get proper experience - though moving to the WH is an order of magnitude larger for everyone other than maybe the governors of CA, FL and NY. (TX doesn't count because they have a very weak governor.)

The point is that the real qualification for Prez is to be smart and know how to pick the people that will surround you with the proper experience for specific areas. Foreign Policy. Military. Health Care. Economics. Environment. etc and so on.

Even the little bit I know about Abrams suggests that she is qualified for the task. If you're smart and knowledgeable about how government is supposed to work, it is not that hard to pick a competent ruling team. And there is more than enough help available to guide you.

It's just a question of picking the right people, and then knowing how to listen to them. It's not magic.

drummerboy said:

You know, it's really, really rare to have a candidate that's actually "qualified" to be Prez. Biden probably is. Hillary certainly was.

Was Obama "qualified"? Hardly.  George W.?  Nope. Were any of this year's Dem candidates other than Biden actually qualified? 

Does a Senate career make you qualified to run a country? How? A member of the House? How?

Governor's get proper experience - though moving to the WH is an order of magnitude larger for everyone other than maybe the governors of CA, FL and NY. (TX doesn't count because they have a very weak governor.)

The point is that the real qualification for Prez is to be smart and know how to pick the people that will surround you with the proper experience for specific areas. Foreign Policy. Military. Health Care. Economics. Environment. etc and so on.

Even the little bit I know about Abrams suggests that she is qualified for the task. If you're smart and knowledgeable about how government is supposed to work, it is not that hard to pick a competent ruling team. And there is more than enough help available to guide you.

It's just a question of picking the right people, and then knowing how to listen to them. It's not magic.

If we've learned anything from the presidencies of W and the orange menace, one of the most important qualifications is to be a person who knows what he/she doesn't know.

mjc said:

I would love to see Warren as VP or in the cabinet, but then i think, no, she's needed in the Senate.  Also, isn't the governor of Mass a Republican? (and would he have the power to name her replacement?)

Yes, Charlie Baker, moderate Republican, a dying breed, they can only survive in Blue States. He is quite popular too, so not only will he nominate a Republican but he may also run for Warrens open seat (and win). Democrats have a super-majority in Mass state house, so they could pass a law that says the Governor can only nominate a replacement Senator from the same party, but then we are basically lowering ourselves to the level of the GOP and that doesn't sounds like a good idea.

The total has now jumped to 26 million.  Still waiting for Biden to address the insurance crisis these workers and millions of other Americans are facing.

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

Klinker said:

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

 I don't know of anybody who knows what the fcuk the situation will be on January 20, 2021, to know what kind of "health insurance plan to deal with the crisis" will be required.

Klinker said:

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

I'd rather he focus on a plan to win the election at the moment

Klinker said:

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

 He will appoint a task force headed by Elizabeth Warren.

basil said:

Klinker said:

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

I'd rather he focus on a plan to win the election at the moment

 You don't think these are one and the same?

nohero said:

Klinker said:

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

 I don't know of anybody who knows what the fcuk the situation will be on January 20, 2021, to know what kind of "health insurance plan to deal with the crisis" will be required.

 We may not know what the situation will be in January 2021 but we do know damn well that employer provided health insurance is not a bulwark that workers can rely on to see them through times of crisis. 

Klinker said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:

THIRTY MILLION UNEMPLOYED AND RISING and still no sign that Biden is contemplating a health insurance plan to deal with the crisis.

 I don't know of anybody who knows what the fcuk the situation will be on January 20, 2021, to know what kind of "health insurance plan to deal with the crisis" will be required.

 We may not know what the situation will be in January 2021 but we do know damn well that employer provided health insurance is not a bulwark that workers can rely on to see them through times of crisis. 

 And Biden's current plan allows, but does not rely on, employer-provided health insurance.

I'll just repeat this again as the crisis deepens.  If Medicare For All is not a winning electoral strategy in 2020, it NEVER will be.

ml1 said:

I'll just repeat this again as the crisis deepens.  If Medicare For All is not a winning electoral strategy in 2020, it NEVER will be.

But one can come up with any number of plans that address the crisis without being M4A. For instance, a plan that did something like upgrade unemployment benefits to include covering COBRA payments, such that beneficiaries would only pay the same for medical insurance as they did while they were employed, would directly address the crisis while falling far short of the goals of M4A.

This is the mistake I think M4A advocates make -- they assume that enough of the country at large agrees with then on ultimate goals, but that assumption is not necessarily warranted. Eliminating the coupling of employment and health insurance is a core goal of M4A (and one I happen to think is a good policy goal), but it doesn't follow that's actually a goal the country as a whole wants.

PVW said:

But one can come up with any number of plans that address the crisis without being M4A. For instance, a plan that did something like upgrade unemployment benefits to include covering COBRA payments, such that beneficiaries would only pay the same for medical insurance as they did while they were employed, would directly address the crisis while falling far short of the goals of M4A.

This is the mistake I think M4A advocates make -- they assume that enough of the country at large agrees with then on ultimate goals, but that assumption is not necessarily warranted. Eliminating the coupling of employment and health insurance is a core goal of M4A (and one I happen to think is a good policy goal), but it doesn't follow that's actually a goal the country as a whole wants.

 any other solutions won't be nearly as cost-efficient, easy or elegant as single-payer for all.  And if you and others think it's not a winner at this time, at what time could it ever be an electoral winner?

ml1 said:

 any other solutions won't be nearly as cost-efficient, easy or elegant as single-payer for all.  And if you and others think it's not a winner at this time, at one time could it ever be an electoral winner?

I think it could be, considering:

• The current electorate is very polarized. If Democrats say that water is wet, Republicans will object, and vice versa. At some point this will pass and cooler heads will prevail, and there will be more room for compromise.
• Socialism traditionally is a bad word in America. I think the newer generations may see this in a more nuanced way (at least that is what I am hoping). Think about all the young-generational support for the campaign of a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.
• America also has a large racist undercurrent ("I don't want the government take my money and use it to help people of color"). I am hoping this is also changing in younger generations.

ml1 said:

PVW said:

But one can come up with any number of plans that address the crisis without being M4A. For instance, a plan that did something like upgrade unemployment benefits to include covering COBRA payments, such that beneficiaries would only pay the same for medical insurance as they did while they were employed, would directly address the crisis while falling far short of the goals of M4A.

This is the mistake I think M4A advocates make -- they assume that enough of the country at large agrees with then on ultimate goals, but that assumption is not necessarily warranted. Eliminating the coupling of employment and health insurance is a core goal of M4A (and one I happen to think is a good policy goal), but it doesn't follow that's actually a goal the country as a whole wants.

 any other solutions won't be nearly as cost-efficient, easy or elegant as single-payer for all.  And if you and others think it's not a winner at this time, at what time could it ever be an electoral winner?

 I'm not convinced it's an electoral winner, because I'm not convinced it's what the electorate actually wants. And while other solutions may be less cost-efficient or elegant, I think many have the advantage of addressing many of the concerns voters have around health care without them also trying to sell then on single payer which, much as it makes sense from a pure policy perspective, doesn't seem to be a winner politically.

Now I happen to think that as health care access expands and things like a public option get established, people will become more open to severing that link with employment entirely. But I don't think you can get there from here, without such intermediary steps. A more costly route that arrives at the desired destination is better than a cheaper route that never arrives at all.

PVW said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

But one can come up with any number of plans that address the crisis without being M4A. For instance, a plan that did something like upgrade unemployment benefits to include covering COBRA payments, such that beneficiaries would only pay the same for medical insurance as they did while they were employed, would directly address the crisis while falling far short of the goals of M4A.

This is the mistake I think M4A advocates make -- they assume that enough of the country at large agrees with then on ultimate goals, but that assumption is not necessarily warranted. Eliminating the coupling of employment and health insurance is a core goal of M4A (and one I happen to think is a good policy goal), but it doesn't follow that's actually a goal the country as a whole wants.

 any other solutions won't be nearly as cost-efficient, easy or elegant as single-payer for all.  And if you and others think it's not a winner at this time, at what time could it ever be an electoral winner?

 I'm not convinced it's an electoral winner, because I'm not convinced it's what the electorate actually wants. And while other solutions may be less cost-efficient or elegant, I think many have the advantage of addressing many of the concerns voters have around health care without them also trying to sell then on single payer which, much as it makes sense from a pure policy perspective, doesn't seem to be a winner politically.

Now I happen to think that as health care access expands and things like a public option get established, people will become more open to severing that link with employment entirely. But I don't think you can get there from here, without such intermediary steps. A more costly route that arrives at the desired destination is better than a cheaper route that never arrives at all.

 It would be good to see some polling on how the millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance at the worst possible moment see it. I imagine the results might surprise you.

Klinker said:

PVW said:

ml1 said:

PVW said:

But one can come up with any number of plans that address the crisis without being M4A. For instance, a plan that did something like upgrade unemployment benefits to include covering COBRA payments, such that beneficiaries would only pay the same for medical insurance as they did while they were employed, would directly address the crisis while falling far short of the goals of M4A.

This is the mistake I think M4A advocates make -- they assume that enough of the country at large agrees with then on ultimate goals, but that assumption is not necessarily warranted. Eliminating the coupling of employment and health insurance is a core goal of M4A (and one I happen to think is a good policy goal), but it doesn't follow that's actually a goal the country as a whole wants.

 any other solutions won't be nearly as cost-efficient, easy or elegant as single-payer for all.  And if you and others think it's not a winner at this time, at what time could it ever be an electoral winner?

 I'm not convinced it's an electoral winner, because I'm not convinced it's what the electorate actually wants. And while other solutions may be less cost-efficient or elegant, I think many have the advantage of addressing many of the concerns voters have around health care without them also trying to sell then on single payer which, much as it makes sense from a pure policy perspective, doesn't seem to be a winner politically.

Now I happen to think that as health care access expands and things like a public option get established, people will become more open to severing that link with employment entirely. But I don't think you can get there from here, without such intermediary steps. A more costly route that arrives at the desired destination is better than a cheaper route that never arrives at all.

 It would be good to see some polling on how the millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance at the worst possible moment see it. I imagine the results might surprise you.

 I'd love to be surprised.

PVW said:

 I'm not convinced it's an electoral winner, because I'm not convinced it's what the electorate actually wants. And while other solutions may be less cost-efficient or elegant, I think many have the advantage of addressing many of the concerns voters have around health care without them also trying to sell then on single payer which, much as it makes sense from a pure policy perspective, doesn't seem to be a winner politically.

Now I happen to think that as health care access expands and things like a public option get established, people will become more open to severing that link with employment entirely. But I don't think you can get there from here, without such intermediary steps. A more costly route that arrives at the desired destination is better than a cheaper route that never arrives at all.

 if 30 million people out of work within a month doesn't sever the link to employment, nothing will.  if you're correct (and I don't have any evidence that you aren't), this country is not going to solve health care in my lifetime.  And probably not my kids' lifetime.

a depressing and demoralizing proposition, but probably true. 

ml1 said:

PVW said:

 I'm not convinced it's an electoral winner, because I'm not convinced it's what the electorate actually wants. And while other solutions may be less cost-efficient or elegant, I think many have the advantage of addressing many of the concerns voters have around health care without them also trying to sell then on single payer which, much as it makes sense from a pure policy perspective, doesn't seem to be a winner politically.

Now I happen to think that as health care access expands and things like a public option get established, people will become more open to severing that link with employment entirely. But I don't think you can get there from here, without such intermediary steps. A more costly route that arrives at the desired destination is better than a cheaper route that never arrives at all.

 if 30 million people out of work within a month doesn't sever the link to employment, nothing will.  if you're correct (and I don't have any evidence that you aren't), this country is not going to solve health care in my lifetime.  And probably not my kids' lifetime.

a depressing and demoralizing proposition, but probably true. 

I'd like to see some numbers on how many people have actually lost their insurance. I suspect it's very, very few. The people who are losing their jobs are mostly in the low-paid service industries, where they very rarely get insurance anyway.