Employer Provided Insurance: THIRTY THREE MILLION Americans Won't Be Worrying About Losing It Anymore 
drummerboy said:
RealityForAll said:
drummerboy said:
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Well, I think he's afraid because being for M4A brings up the bugaboo of people losing their wonderful private insurance, which, unfortunately, much of the electorate is fearful of.
To say nothing of the box he's painted himself into with the zillion-gazillion cost.
He has no choice before the election. Be hopeful that maybe he'll change after he's elected.
so the worst public health disaster in a century doesn't even make him pause? Pretty much confirms my concern about him. It's like he's the second most unsuited man in America to be our next president.
Each day that passes makes me more sad that our voters are too ******* stupid to have chosen Elizabeth Warren.
Your statement above (bolded) undermines the notion of universal, adult sufferage.
how so?
"too ******* stupid to have chosen Elizabeth Warren" implies that voters are incapable of assessing their own needs and wants and then electing the candidate(s) most likely to satisfy those needs and wants. A HuffPost article suggests voters should be tested on the platforms of various political parties before being allowed to vote. See: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voter-test-europe-china_b_4776362 Huffpost article describes author's ideas on a voter fix.
I still don't see how that undermines anything.
Millions of Americans clearly vote against their best economic interests every time they vote for a Republican. No one is saying that they should be prevented from voting, even though they'd be better off if they just stayed home..
Voters who vote based on economics only can be described as abiding by "public choice theory." See: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-every-voter-should-k_b_8217650
However, many vote based on economics AND also based on customs, culture and tradition. For some, customs, culture and tradition supersede economics when making decisions about voting.
Link to discussion of importance of customs, culture and tradition: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/02/01/wide-disparity-on-the-importance-of-national-customs-and-traditions/
DaveSchmidt said:
Also, the unemployment claims include furloughed workers who retain their health coverage during the furlough. As you added, the point still stands.
Still a big number and expected to grow.
with the end of the penalty for ignoring the ACA mandate, there will likely be a lot of people who choose not to get insurance, even on the exchange. If a family needs to choose between buying food or buying health insurance, it's probably not going to be a tough choice.
PVW said:
Why the current health crisis necessarily means M4A is the most politically viable answer and not, say, a robust public option, I couldn't say. Of course, there's already a thread on this, so probably little value in rehashing the same discussions again here.
Health premiums are expected to rise 40% next year. The ACA leaves 30 million uninsured. a public option will not control consts and will overburden the the group in the option with the sickest patients and fail. Aso, if you are broke you will not be able to even afford the PO. This pandemic has made it clear that Bernie was right and we need Medicare for All. That's why Joe Biden changes the subject when they ask him about it or says "how are we going to pay for that?" which should now be an obviously stupid question to everyone.
nan said:
Still a big number and expected to grow.
I didn’t dispute that. I knew that fact about furloughs only because of past experience, so I figured I’d share it for a little context when the unemployment claims come up for discussion.
nan said:
PVW said:
Why the current health crisis necessarily means M4A is the most politically viable answer and not, say, a robust public option, I couldn't say. Of course, there's already a thread on this, so probably little value in rehashing the same discussions again here.
Health premiums are expected to rise 40% next year. The ACA leaves 30 million uninsured. a public option will not control consts and will overburden the the group in the option with the sickest patients and fail. Aso, if you are broke you will not be able to even afford the PO. This pandemic has made it clear that Bernie was right and we need Medicare for All. That's why Joe Biden changes the subject when they ask him about it or says "how are we going to pay for that?" which should now be an obviously stupid question to everyone.
Which reminds me, you never answered this question:
Let's say the Deus ex machina descends, hands Sanders the nomination, Democrats take the Senate and abolish the filibuster, and Schumer and Pelosi get Medicare-for-those-who-want-it passed. Does Sanders veto it because it's not Medicare-for-All?
nan said:
Health premiums are expected to rise 40% next year.
More context: The expectation, from one analysis, is as high as 40 percent and as low as 4 percent.
40% always sounded a bit hinky to me. That would be kind of catastrophic. (not to be confused with other concurrent catastrophes)
PVW said:
Which reminds me, you never answered this question:
Let's say the Deus ex machina descends, hands Sanders the nomination, Democrats take the Senate and abolish the filibuster, and Schumer and Pelosi get Medicare-for-those-who-want-it passed. Does Sanders veto it because it's not Medicare-for-All?
if the analyses of the cost are correct (and they probably are, given that Medicare for all who want it won't take the profit and marketing costs out of most of the health care insurance system), the most expensive of all alternatives (keeping status quo, M4A, and M4A who want) would be that Medicare-for-those-who-want it. So if Congress did their due diligence on cost, they should either keep the status quo, or enact M4A single payer. Tacking a public option on, and covering millions more people, would over the entire economy cost more than M4A in all likelihood.
Not to say that Congress would actually do the smart and economical thing, given the pressure that will come from the insurance industry, among others.
PVW said:
Which reminds me, you never answered this question:
Let's say the Deus ex machina descends, hands Sanders the nomination, Democrats take the Senate and abolish the filibuster, and Schumer and Pelosi get Medicare-for-those-who-want-it passed. Does Sanders veto it because it's not Medicare-for-All?
There will be bigger problems than that if the President is saying I want Medicare for All and the Democrats are saying no, here's the crappy public option instead. The American people will not be happy.
nan said:
PVW said:
Which reminds me, you never answered this question:
Let's say the Deus ex machina descends, hands Sanders the nomination, Democrats take the Senate and abolish the filibuster, and Schumer and Pelosi get Medicare-for-those-who-want-it passed. Does Sanders veto it because it's not Medicare-for-All?
There will be bigger problems than that if the President is saying I want Medicare for All and the Democrats are saying no, here's the crappy public option instead. The American people will not be happy.
Ok -- so you take Biden to task over a hypothetical vetoing of a bill that doesn't exist, but give Sanders a pass in a similar situation. It's what I expected, but wanted to give you a chance to surprise me.
ml1 said:
PVW said:
Which reminds me, you never answered this question:
Let's say the Deus ex machina descends, hands Sanders the nomination, Democrats take the Senate and abolish the filibuster, and Schumer and Pelosi get Medicare-for-those-who-want-it passed. Does Sanders veto it because it's not Medicare-for-All?
if the analyses of the cost are correct (and they probably are, given that Medicare for all who want it won't take the profit and marketing costs out of most of the health care insurance system), the most expensive of all alternatives (keeping status quo, M4A, and M4A who want) would be that Medicare-for-those-who-want it. So if Congress did their due diligence on cost, they should either keep the status quo, or enact M4A single payer. Tacking a public option on, and covering millions more people, would over the entire economy cost more than M4A in all likelihood.
Not to say that Congress would actually do the smart and economical thing, given the pressure that will come from the insurance industry, among others.
The key focus here I'm trying to draw out here is about what's an easier political sell. I agree that if we were going on pure policy considerations a single-payer system makes the most sense (though I'm not quite convinced that must also and always mean outlawing private insurance, as there's a variety of single-payer systems worldwide and some have more room for private insurance than others).
While a "medicare-for-all-who-want-it" might well actually end up being more expensive, it could still be an easier sell, and that's not a small point.
I don't see how M4AWWI "medicare-for-all-who-want-it" is any much different than the ACA. The problem is that insurance is crazy expensive. Being able to buy into medicare can't be significantly cheaper than private insurance (I've never seen any actual numbers on individual's cost), because that would completely upend the market. So what's the point of it?
The end goal for insurance has to be to remove individual premiums and turn that into a broad based tax. M4AWWI doesn't do that. It's a dead end.
drummerboy said:
I don't see how M4AWWI "medicare-for-all-who-want-it" is any much different than the ACA. The problem is that insurance is crazy expensive. Being able to buy into medicare can't be significantly cheaper than private insurance (I've never seen any actual numbers on individual's cost), because that would completely upend the market. So what's the point of it?
The end goal for insurance has to be to remove individual premiums and turn that into a broad based tax. M4AWWI doesn't do that. It's a dead end.
I suspect this is the crux of the issue -- M4A advocates take it as a given that a broad-based tax is preferable to individual premiums, but I don't think it's at all obvious that the electorate as a whole agrees. I think it's implicit, in the labeling it as "medicare," that a goal would be that premiums are affordable, but I'm not convinced the electorate is on board with "no premiums and much higher taxes" regardless of how often people (correctly) point out that the higher taxes would probably still work out being cheaper in practice.
Politics is more than a simple math problem.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
I don't see how M4AWWI "medicare-for-all-who-want-it" is any much different than the ACA. The problem is that insurance is crazy expensive. Being able to buy into medicare can't be significantly cheaper than private insurance (I've never seen any actual numbers on individual's cost), because that would completely upend the market. So what's the point of it?
The end goal for insurance has to be to remove individual premiums and turn that into a broad based tax. M4AWWI doesn't do that. It's a dead end.
I suspect this is the crux of the issue -- M4A advocates take it as a given that a broad-based tax is preferable to individual premiums, but I don't think it's at all obvious that the electorate as a whole agrees. I think it's implicit, in the labeling it as "medicare," that a goal would be that premiums are affordable, but I'm not convinced the electorate is on board with "no premiums and much higher taxes" regardless of how often people (correctly) point out that the higher taxes would probably still work out being cheaper in practice.
Politics is more than a simple math problem.
To me, the real problem is that the M4A zealots, like nan, refuse to accept the idea that folks with common sense may share the GOAL of M4A, while disagreeing as to the path to get there. To them (and her), if you're not for M4A tomorrow, it must mean you're a reactionary dunderhead, and inevitably hate Bernie. Very black/white.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
I don't see how M4AWWI "medicare-for-all-who-want-it" is any much different than the ACA. The problem is that insurance is crazy expensive. Being able to buy into medicare can't be significantly cheaper than private insurance (I've never seen any actual numbers on individual's cost), because that would completely upend the market. So what's the point of it?
The end goal for insurance has to be to remove individual premiums and turn that into a broad based tax. M4AWWI doesn't do that. It's a dead end.
I suspect this is the crux of the issue -- M4A advocates take it as a given that a broad-based tax is preferable to individual premiums, but I don't think it's at all obvious that the electorate as a whole agrees. I think it's implicit, in the labeling it as "medicare," that a goal would be that premiums are affordable, but I'm not convinced the electorate is on board with "no premiums and much higher taxes" regardless of how often people (correctly) point out that the higher taxes would probably still work out being cheaper in practice.
Politics is more than a simple math problem.
I agree. It's not at all obvious to the electorate. That's really the problem in a nutshell.
And as the primary proponent of M4A, I have to lay some major blame at Bernie's feet for not making that case forcefully enough.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
To me, the real problem is that the M4A zealots, like nan, refuse to accept the idea that folks with common sense may share the GOAL of M4A, while disagreeing as to the path to get there. To them (and her), if you're not for M4A tomorrow, it must mean you're a reactionary dunderhead, and inevitably hate Bernie. Very black/white.
You forgot to add that it also means that you don't care if people die from cancer. That's the Bernie line.
Bernie's national press secretary actually tweeted that to Senator Kamala Harris, completely ignoring the fact that Senator Harris's mother had died from cancer.
drummerboy said:
I agree. It's not at all obvious to the electorate. That's really the problem in a nutshell.
And as the primary proponent of M4A, I have to lay some major blame at Bernie's feet for not making that case forcefully enough.
there is anecdotal evidence that people who would themselves benefit from M4A are against it because it would also go to people who don't "deserve" it. So it doesn't matter to them how forcefully someone makes the case, because these are people who already accept the premise that it would help everyone, and it would eliminate their own insurance premiums. They just don't want it to go to the "wrong" people.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
I agree. It's not at all obvious to the electorate. That's really the problem in a nutshell.
And as the primary proponent of M4A, I have to lay some major blame at Bernie's feet for not making that case forcefully enough.
there is anecdotal evidence that people who would themselves benefit from M4A are against it because it would also go to people who don't "deserve" it. So it doesn't matter to them how forcefully someone makes the case, because these are people who already accept the premise that it would help everyone, and it would eliminate their own insurance premiums. They just don't want it to go to the "wrong" people.
I agree. I'd say it's more than anecdotal and it's in fact a motivation behind every attempt to stop the expansion of the welfare state.
I was wrong to simplify it the way I did. Racism is always a part of this.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
I agree. It's not at all obvious to the electorate. That's really the problem in a nutshell.
And as the primary proponent of M4A, I have to lay some major blame at Bernie's feet for not making that case forcefully enough.
there is anecdotal evidence that people who would themselves benefit from M4A are against it because it would also go to people who don't "deserve" it. So it doesn't matter to them how forcefully someone makes the case, because these are people who already accept the premise that it would help everyone, and it would eliminate their own insurance premiums. They just don't want it to go to the "wrong" people.
I agree. I'd say it's more than anecdotal and it's in fact a motivation behind every attempt to stop the expansion of the welfare state.
I was wrong to simplify it the way I did. Racism is always a part of this.
I believe the sociology/political science terms here are "social trust" and "political trust," eg as referenced in this Vox article talking about Warren:
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/27/21150341/elizabeth-warren-procedural-reform-social-trust
Racism is definitely a huge part of the low social trust we have in the US. I think it'll get worse before it gets better -- I think one of the primary destroyers of social trust currently is the GOP, and I don't see them moderating in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future.
I suspect this will all look very different by late summer, assuming that Trump, Sanders and Biden survive that long. By then, we may be talking about a race between Marco Rubio and Kamala Harris.
Klinker said:
I suspect this will all look very different by late summer, assuming that Trump, Sanders and Biden survive that long. By then, we may be talking about a race between Marco Rubio and Kamala Harris.
Reliable sources inform me that there is a high probability Joe Biden (JB (Biden, Joseph)) will be replaced at the convention, so this scenario is almost certainly exactly what will happen.
PVW said:
Ok -- so you take Biden to task over a hypothetical vetoing of a bill that doesn't exist, but give Sanders a pass in a similar situation. It's what I expected, but wanted to give you a chance to surprise me.
I don't know how I can beat you over the head any more with the reality of our situation right now. We have 3.3 million people who just lost their jobs during a pandemic. There is no acceptable position to hold right now except for Medicare for All. None. Zippo. The argument is over. Our healthcare system has plunged us into 3rd World level conditions, but what is especially horrifying are those with a deadly disease who don't have insurance to cover treatment.
Biden's attitude about Medicare for All is disqualifying beyond his senility, compulsive lying, horrible record, family and personal issues related to Ukraine, new rape accusations, and old accusations about improper touching and so much more. Just a dreadful candidate in every way.
nan said:
PVW said:
Ok -- so you take Biden to task over a hypothetical vetoing of a bill that doesn't exist, but give Sanders a pass in a similar situation. It's what I expected, but wanted to give you a chance to surprise me.
I don't know how I can beat you over the head any more with the reality of our situation right now. We have 3.3 million people who just lost their jobs during a pandemic. There is no acceptable position to hold right now except for Medicare for All. None. Zippo. The argument is over. Our healthcare system has plunged us into 3rd World level conditions, but what is especially horrifying are those with a deadly disease who don't have insurance to cover treatment.
Biden's attitude about Medicare for All is disqualifying beyond his senility, compulsive lying, horrible record, family and personal issues related to Ukraine, new rape accusations, and old accusations about improper touching and so much more. Just a dreadful candidate in every way.
So, you are saying that if Congress sends anything other than M4A to a Pres. Sanders, he should veto it?
PVW said:
Reliable sources inform me that there is a high probability Joe Biden (JB (Biden, Joseph)) will be replaced at the convention, so this scenario is almost certainly exactly what will happen.
Also, I have it from reliable sources that the earth is flat. It will all be revealed at a joint press conference by Jill Stein (Stein, Jill), Vladimir Putin (Putin, Vladimir), and Julian Assange (Assange, Julian).
PVW said:
Klinker said:
I suspect this will all look very different by late summer, assuming that Trump, Sanders and Biden survive that long. By then, we may be talking about a race between Marco Rubio and Kamala Harris.
Reliable sources inform me that there is a high probability Joe Biden (JB (Biden, Joseph)) will be replaced at the convention, so this scenario is almost certainly exactly what will happen.
Hey PVW, can you share your source(s) regarding Biden-will-likely-be-replaced-as-2020-democratic-candidate?
I believe that I first heard this factoid (at the time that I first heard it was still classified as a mere rumor) on TYT (Cenk Ugyuhr) and/or Jimmy Dore's show.
basil said:
PVW said:
Reliable sources inform me that there is a high probability Joe Biden (JB (Biden, Joseph)) will be replaced at the convention, so this scenario is almost certainly exactly what will happen.
Also, I have it from reliable sources that the earth is flat. It will all be revealed at a joint press conference by Jill Stein (Stein, Jill), Vladimir Putin (Putin, Vladimir), and Julian Assange (Assange, Julian).
I think that Biden and Trump will be the nominees if they are alive and in good health. If they get sick, however, all bets are off. A ride on a ventilator is hard even for a young person but for a man of advanced years and diminished mental capacity, lets just say its not a good way to kick off a national campaign.
basil said:
PVW said:
Reliable sources inform me that there is a high probability Joe Biden (JB (Biden, Joseph)) will be replaced at the convention, so this scenario is almost certainly exactly what will happen.
Also, I have it from reliable sources that the earth is flat. It will all be revealed at a joint press conference by Jill Stein (Stein, Jill), Vladimir Putin (Putin, Vladimir), and Julian Assange (Assange, Julian).
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbnbQZcAWs
Since "Mad Mike" (flat earth leader) passed on, flat earth adherents are looking for a new leader. You(basil) might want to consider replacing "Mad Mike" (in light of your newly found enthusiasm for flat-earth theory).
RealityForAll said:
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbnbQZcAWs
Since "Mad Mike" (flat earth leader) passed on, flat earth adherents are looking for a new leader. You(basil) might want to consider replacing "Mad Mike" (in light of your new-found enthusiasm for flat-earth theory).
Did he fall off the edge?
Why the current health crisis necessarily means M4A is the most politically viable answer and not, say, a robust public option, I couldn't say. Of course, there's already a thread on this, so probably little value in rehashing the same discussions again here.