|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 01 2017 07:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 06:55 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 03:34 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:58 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 00:53 farvacola wrote:
Yes, every plan proposed by Republicans is similarly terrible. "No matter what Republicans propose" is fatuous nonsense, to borrow a pedantic word. You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion. Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate. Are you referring to the Oregon study? If so I'm happy to cite it. It had it's limitations, but still reached some interesting conclusions: The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical OutcomesMedicaid coverage did not have a significant effect on measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, or glycated hemoglobin. I assume this is what you're referring to when you say that access to Medicaid has been proven to not improve health outcomes. As you are probably well-aware, these three measures are not the only way to measure health outcomes. It should be noted that the sample size of the study was too small to look at morbidity or cancer treatment, among other things. The study did find that access to Medicaid increased the percentage of people who reported that their health had improved over the previous year, and reduced financial hardship from catastrophic medical expenses. Keeping in mind that this study had a small sample size and was limited to one state, it is totally reasonable to have a discussion around it about whether the amount we spend on Medicaid is worth the identified benefits. It would also be great to discuss improvements which can be made to Medicaid so that the treatments provided do a better job of treating blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. However the current debate isn't about the best way to provide healthcare to poor people. The current debate is over whether a tax cut for rich people should be paid for by taking health coverage away from millions of poor people. Conservatives supporting the healthcare bill (I know you're not in this group) don't give a shit about health outcomes. Oh, is that the status of the current debate? Tax cuts for rich people should be paid by taking away health coverage from millions of poor people? I almost took you seriously. But if that's your game, the current debate is on making healthy people the slaves of the poor and infirm, and crashing the insurance markets while trying to dodge the blame. If you want to up it to Warren/Clinton/Sanders heights, you can add on making forcing free citizens to pay for the massacre of innocent women and children. I'm a little tired of the policy as atrocity game, but if you want everyone to emerge callous and flip it around every time, you're doing an excellent job. I'd be happy to revisit and invest the time necessary into these long back and forths when Congress comes back from recess and the discourse is less reminiscent of Calling your political opponents kulaks. I'm already mad enough that I'll probably be forced to vote Trump again if this is the opposition's stance. I'm genuinely confused about what you think the purpose of the bill is if not to cut taxes for rich people... Specifically the taxes in the ACA which were designed to pay for the Medicaid expansion exchange subsidies. If they left those taxes in place there's all kinds of things they could do to reform the healthcare system in a more conservative direction that would arguably be better than the status quo. Unfortunately the goal of this effort appears to be to cut taxes, not to improve or even reform the healthcare system in a conservative direction. It's keeping the basic structure of the ACA in place, while removing hundreds of billions of dollars from the system. I don't see how anyone could argue in good faith that this approach will lead to improvements over the status quo. Color me confused that you can call your approach genuine. I'm genuinely impressed ACA wants to wealth transfer from healthy to sick and poor, Senate wants to fund from more deficit spending. It fixes nothing and does a lot of kicking the can to the states. Obamacare needs a fix to put a stop to millions of Americans that cannot afford (and forbidden to purchase) health insurance that works for their families. It's got very little support. Status quo is simply untenable. + Show Spoiler +Bankrupting the country is also not the way out. Entitlement spending left unfixed consumes the federal budget in timespans that make climate alarmists do a double take. But I mean if you're all about status quo and fixes to a bill that broke the system are just cover for policies that benefit the 1%, we should probably just repeal it now and replace with jack shit because the debates over.
I'm confused about what you're trying to argue. I was talking about the Senate bill which appears to be primarily motivated by a desire to cut taxes, rather than a desire to improve the healthcare system. You seem to agree that it's a shitty bill, but you disagree that it cuts taxes primarily on wealthy people? Or do you just think that cutting taxes for wealthy people is only incidental to the goals of the bill? If so, what do you think those goals are? Do you think this is primarily a deficit reduction bill rather than a healthcare bill?
I totally agree the ACA needs fixed. I fail to see how the Senate or House bills currently being considered accomplish this however. You probably think that allowing the states to waive essential benefits and pre-existing condition coverage is a step in the right direction, but even assuming that's the case any marginal improvement from those changes would be wiped out by the increased costs to consumers these bills would cause.
|
On July 01 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But what about the areas where it could end business built on a lower minimum wage? And there are no other jobs to replace those lost wages. In the abstract, it is easy to say “well that business wasn’t viable, so it shouldn’t exist”. But what about when there is nothing to takes its place? There are some businesses that can’t support those wages. If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now? No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient. I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite. So increasing minimum wage is a job killer, because increasing minimum wage is a band-aid solution for living expenses that need to be covered by other systems and infrastructure. I mean I'm taking P6 at his word that his town can't support itself, if that's the case, then the increasing the minimum wage isn't a job killer, the town is. Small towns tend to have very different economies than big cities, so no, I guess if we're splitting hairs then the town is not the job killer, them big city folk like you are the job killers. Well then I'd blame capitalism and be happy to be looking at alternatives and alternative manifestations. But it's not the wage. As to the $15/hr, I'm not actually particularly tied to that number, that's why I usually just use the phrase living wage. I suppose the issue is that $15 still isn't enough for plenty of places much of Washington being such a place so I usually use $15 if I use a number. I'd expect any federal $15 bill to be watered down to less in rural America, but let Republicans make that argument. So the rest of the country will be getting $15+ and Republicans can brag to their constituents and dying towns how they saved their jobs with wages that leave them qualifying for welfare but think they shouldn't get it. If Democrats can't win that argument they should die off as a party.
Well, when the cost of rent alone in a big city is more than enough to buy a nice property and live comfortably in many rural areas, then the wage is a problem when no one is calculating it properly.
"Living wage" is also so variable, because that number is generally based on the cost of a 4 person family with two working members with two dependants, so setting that flat across an entire work force means a "living wage" is more than that for some, and well below that for others.
Which is why minimum wage is a terrible metric in general, because it's far too rigid to account for far too many variables.
|
On July 01 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:
I think no one here is happy with the GOP's attempts.
Its just that some people think having nothing would be better then what they have now.
I'm currently stuck with nothing, and a backbreaking tax for having nothing.
I think having nothing would be better than that.
|
On July 01 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life. They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece.
And you accuse people of hysterical language and partisan dialog.
On July 01 2017 08:26 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:
I think no one here is happy with the GOP's attempts.
Its just that some people think having nothing would be better then what they have now. I'm currently stuck with nothing, and a backbreaking tax for having nothing. I think having nothing would be better than that.
My wife can't be denied heathcare or investigated for fraud if she gets a new provider and they don't like the cost of covering her. It is pretty great to not have to worry about bankruptcy due to medial bills.
|
On July 01 2017 08:26 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:
I think no one here is happy with the GOP's attempts.
Its just that some people think having nothing would be better then what they have now. I'm currently stuck with nothing, and a backbreaking tax for having nothing. I think having nothing would be better than that.
If your to poor to pay for your healthcare then you get it subsidized.
If there are no subsidies in your state then the fault is not the ACA but your Republican state governor who refused to accept the medicaid expansion.
Go complain to him rather then fucking over the rest of America for your personal satisfaction.
|
I prefer to blame the people that took me hostage rather than the people who refused to pay the ransom.
@Plansix:
Insurance was not an option. It was too expensive. The new bill is trying to use this as an excuse to lock me out of having insurance. But at least it isn't making me pay money for not having money.
|
On July 01 2017 08:36 Buckyman wrote:
I prefer to blame the people that took me hostage rather than the people who refused to pay the ransom.
@Plansix:
Insurance was not an option. It was too expensive. The new bill is trying to use this as an excuse to lock me out of having insurance. But at least it isn't making me pay for not getting anything.
The Democrats thought of you with the medicaid expansion. Republicans are telling you to fuck off by not helping you and their new bills fucks you over more by further raising the cost your insurance would have.
But sure, go complain about the guy who wanted to help you while cheering on the guy you wants to fuck you.
|
On July 01 2017 08:36 Buckyman wrote:
I prefer to blame the people that took me hostage rather than the people who refused to pay the ransom.
@Plansix:
Insurance was not an option. It was too expensive. The new bill is trying to use this as an excuse to lock me out of having insurance. But at least it isn't making me pay money for not having money.
then blame the republicans, they're the ones taking you hostage.
|
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can.
|
On July 01 2017 08:36 Buckyman wrote:
I prefer to blame the people that took me hostage rather than the people who refused to pay the ransom.
@Plansix:
Insurance was not an option. It was too expensive. The new bill is trying to use this as an excuse to lock me out of having insurance. But at least it isn't making me pay money for not having money.
Ahm, as i understand it, it's the republicans that took you hostage, not the democrats.
The option to help you is there. Republicans decided to not give it to you, you can't really blame democrats for that.
|
On July 01 2017 08:46 Buckyman wrote:
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can.
pretty disingenuous claim (the first two *'s); mostly you're projecting your own personal situation, which isn't evne because of the Dems properly speaking; onto everything else.
|
On July 01 2017 08:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now? No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient. I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite. So increasing minimum wage is a job killer, because increasing minimum wage is a band-aid solution for living expenses that need to be covered by other systems and infrastructure. I mean I'm taking P6 at his word that his town can't support itself, if that's the case, then the increasing the minimum wage isn't a job killer, the town is. Small towns tend to have very different economies than big cities, so no, I guess if we're splitting hairs then the town is not the job killer, them big city folk like you are the job killers. Well then I'd blame capitalism and be happy to be looking at alternatives and alternative manifestations. But it's not the wage. As to the $15/hr, I'm not actually particularly tied to that number, that's why I usually just use the phrase living wage. I suppose the issue is that $15 still isn't enough for plenty of places much of Washington being such a place so I usually use $15 if I use a number. I'd expect any federal $15 bill to be watered down to less in rural America, but let Republicans make that argument. So the rest of the country will be getting $15+ and Republicans can brag to their constituents and dying towns how they saved their jobs with wages that leave them qualifying for welfare but think they shouldn't get it. If Democrats can't win that argument they should die off as a party. Well, when the cost of rent alone in a big city is more than enough to buy a nice property and live comfortably in many rural areas, then the wage is a problem when no one is calculating it properly. "Living wage" is also so variable, because that number is generally based on the cost of a 4 person family with two working members with two dependants, so setting that flat across an entire work force means a "living wage" is more than that for some, and well below that for others. Which is why minimum wage is a terrible metric in general, because it's far too rigid to account for far too many variables.
I'm not disagreeing that minimum wage is not the best option. It's better than the same system without it, and a higher one is better than the stagnant one we have, but that's a pretty low bar.
Any real wrestling with chronic poverty, wealth disparity, and social/economic mobility is going to have to involve those things p6 says are politically unfeasible and several others usually dismissed by the political class. Until then we're just fighting for concepts (healthcare as a right) or damage mitigation (lifting wage rates).
Personally I'm over those types of fights. I'm looking for people with better ideas and the guts to fight for them whether they are popular when they start fighting or not.
I don't need another status quo Democrat to offer to keep me dangling over the precipice of catastrophe that would be Republican representation. I need someone who is going to call the Republican politicians what they are (that catastrophe) call Democrats out for the hostage negotiator role they are playing, and offer an alternative vision that takes away their viability as parties by making plain what it is they both are.
I know, I'm a crazy for wanting, and thinking that can happen. You guys are all the sane ones for enabling them and making sure it doesn't.
|
On July 01 2017 08:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:46 Buckyman wrote:
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can. pretty disingenuous claim (the first two *'s); mostly you're projecting your own personal situation, which isn't evne because of the Dems properly speaking; onto everything else.
It's a pretty general claim that seems to hold up empirically in a variety of issues (minimum wage, zoning, professional licensing, education, environmentalism). It's just so cynical that I find it hard to believe it's their actual motivation.
On July 01 2017 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm not disagreeing that minimum wage is not the best option. It's better than the same system without it, and a higher one is better than the stagnant one we have, but that's a pretty low bar.
So let states and cities set their own minimum wage. That's basically what we're doing already, except the federal government decides that a few states' minimum wage isn't high enough and overrides it even though some of those states could really, really use a lower minimum wage.
|
On July 01 2017 08:46 Buckyman wrote:
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can.
1) this is how healthcare works. The young and healthy help pay for the old and sick. It looks bad if your young and healthy but the good thing is that you know your going to turn old and sick. Its nice to know they got your back then.
2) Probably why the federal government would pay for the expansion for the first X years.
3) If you cant obtain insurance for some reason you can get the penalty waived.
4) Larger risk pool = lower price, which is what the mandate is for.
5) Money has to come from somewhere. Where would you like to money to pay for your healthcare to come from? Since you said you cant afford it yourself.
6) Oh and what about when you get a serious injury that you don't buy insurance for because you think your young and healthy and dont need it? Do you look at your wife/kid and tell em to watch you slowly waste away or does society foot the bill for your stupidity so you can live?
|
On July 01 2017 08:36 Buckyman wrote:
I prefer to blame the people that took me hostage rather than the people who refused to pay the ransom.
@Plansix:
Insurance was not an option. It was too expensive. The new bill is trying to use this as an excuse to lock me out of having insurance. But at least it isn't making me pay money for not having money.
They should do something better and find a way to get you a plan you can afford. Healthcare got more expensive for me too, but quite a lot. But the extra money is worth it since we don't need to worry about my wife being cut off.
|
On July 01 2017 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:
4) Larger risk pool = lower price, which is what the mandate is for.
I believe this is exactly wrong for health care. Health care is astronomically expensive right now because of too much insurance. Within an insurance pool this principle holds, but only as long as no one pool is large enough to trigger the 'too much insurance' problem.
We currently have at least three different pools that are large enough to each force the costs significantly upwards. So the increased costs more than offset the benefits from a larger pool.
5) Money has to come from somewhere. Where would you like to money to pay for your healthcare to come from? Since you said you cant afford it yourself.
I could afford it before the premiums started doubling repeatedly under Obamacare.
Besides, it's not like America spends more money on health care for rich people than poor people.
|
On July 01 2017 08:54 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:48 zlefin wrote:On July 01 2017 08:46 Buckyman wrote:
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can. pretty disingenuous claim (the first two *'s); mostly you're projecting your own personal situation, which isn't evne because of the Dems properly speaking; onto everything else. It's a pretty general claim that seems to hold up empirically in a variety of issues (minimum wage, zoning, professional licensing, education, environmentalism). It's just so cynical that I find it hard to believe it's their actual motivation.
it's a claim clearly based on hate and bias, rather than a careful study. the way you phrase it is filled with venom. it's easy to see hwat you want to see; it's far harder to carefully assess whether it's actually correct or not.
the actual motivations are better in most of the cases, and fairly understandable. (and at any rate, the republicans are clearly no better)
and you've still got no real case for blaming the dems over the republicans.
|
On July 01 2017 09:03 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:
4) Larger risk pool = lower price, which is what the mandate is for. I believe this is exactly wrong for health care.
That is how insurance works. That is how all insurance works. The more people that have it, the lower the cost.
On July 01 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:54 Buckyman wrote:On July 01 2017 08:48 zlefin wrote:On July 01 2017 08:46 Buckyman wrote:
As far as I can tell from actions, the Democratic party's standard operating procedure is:
* Publicly and visibly do things that look like they help disadvantaged people
* At every possible opportunity, subtly fuck over all the disadvantaged people as hard as they can
It's not like the Republicans decreed that I must severely overpay for health insurance by virtue of being under 60.
Or that states with limited financial means must match the entire medicaid expansion dollar for dollar or lose all of it.
Or that people who can't obtain insurance for some reason deserve to pay a penalty.
Or that health care must be so expensive that people without insurance generally can't afford it (see previous post on basic economics).
Or that the medicaid expansion should be partly funded by special taxes on health insurance and health care.
Or that I can't get a more affordable insurance policy that covers a relevant subset of possible health issues.
Of course, I don't think the Democrats ordered the exchange to kick me out for no explained reason either. That's just bureaucracy being awful because it can. pretty disingenuous claim (the first two *'s); mostly you're projecting your own personal situation, which isn't evne because of the Dems properly speaking; onto everything else. It's a pretty general claim that seems to hold up empirically in a variety of issues (minimum wage, zoning, professional licensing, education, environmentalism). It's just so cynical that I find it hard to believe it's their actual motivation. and you've still got no real case for blaming the dems over the republicans.
It doesn't matter who he blames. What matter is who he decides to support in the future, the people trying to fix the problem or just create a different problem to fulfill promises they couldn't really keep.
|
On July 01 2017 09:03 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:
4) Larger risk pool = lower price, which is what the mandate is for. I believe this is exactly wrong for health care. Health care is astronomically expensive right now because of too much insurance. Within an insurance pool this principle holds, but only as long as no one pool is large enough to trigger the 'too much insurance' problem. We currently have at least three different pools that are large enough to each force the costs significantly upwards. So the increased costs more than offset the benefits from a larger pool. Show nested quote +
5) Money has to come from somewhere. Where would you like to money to pay for your healthcare to come from? Since you said you cant afford it yourself.
I could afford it before the premiums started doubling repeatedly under Obamacare. Besides, it's not like America spends more money on health care for rich people than poor people.
Right, the mythical "America" problem. Because every other first would country doesn't seem to suffer from this 'to much healthcare' issue.
And right, you had one of those plans that didn't actually cover anything and could dump you the moment you got seriously ill.
Well be glad that never happened.
|
On July 01 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
it's a claim clearly based on hate and bias, rather than a careful study. the way you phrase it is filled with venom. it's easy to see hwat you want to see; it's far harder to carefully assess whether it's actually correct or not.
the actual motivations are better in most of the cases, and fairly understandable. (and at any rate, the republicans are clearly no better)
and you've still got no real case for blaming the dems over the republicans.
I blame the Democrats on health care and health insurance only because the Republicans had no say in the matter until this year. I'm not thrilled with how the Republicans have handled it either.
Judging the Republicans by the same standard, they're apathetic rather than malicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
