EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8116
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
also I have yet to see a single health expert say that Obamacare is failing or collapsing. also a lot of problems are due to the current administration. not saying it doesn't have a million problems that need to be addressed but despite all attempts to weaken it and the uncertainty of the market it's still collapsing or failing in the usually sense of the word for insurance. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 19 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote: Murkowski campaigned on repeal and voted to repeal. All three in fact voted to repeal. Good luck in your primaries if you vote against repeal after all these years of saying you'd do it. Even if we ignore the fact that the 2015 vote was purely ceremonial, it wasn't really a repeal bill. It was a "delayed repeal in two years at which point something will have to be done or else Medicare will collapse" bill. Plus the primary voting public now knows what repeal actually means. They didn't before because the GOP lied to them about what the ACA was. I think they began to realize this in 2016, thanks to Trump's own promises to replace/augment rather than fully repeal. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On July 19 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote: Murkowski campaigned on repeal and voted to repeal. All three in fact voted to repeal. Good luck in your primaries if you vote against repeal after all these years of saying you'd do it. She lost her primary to a pure conservative last time. She said #% you, ran as a _write-in_ and won with no problems. I dont think she needs to worry about her right flank, people from Alaska seem to like her. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On July 19 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/alexnpress/status/886702537637863424 These delusional leftist nuts aren't pushing Dems towards anything. State level single payer plans are guaranteed plans for state bankruptcy. States are not like the federal government because they don't have their own currency and can't borrow and tax the same way the federal government can. States are also subject to adverse selection pressures from the deeply sick and deeply poor flooding high benefit states. State level Dems are wisely not proceeding with single plans because they are guaranteed pathways to state insolvency. If you want to push for state level single payer, then you need to pony up a plan that isn't a fast track to fiscal crisis. EDIT: this is from Mother Jones. Not exactly a hard right source. State level single payer would cost ... DOUBLE the entire California State budget. DOUBLE! Just because Michael Moore had that great movie about Canada-Care doesn't mean Canada-Care can be implemented at the state level. When will the hard left ever start considering actual math? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/single-payer-california-brown-trump/ The new system would cost a lot of money. The Senate committee in charge of the bill calculated that Healthy California would cost the state $400 billion per year. For context, that’s more than double the state’s current budget. Of course, much of that spending would replace money that is already being spent. Last year, individuals, the state, and the federal government spent an estimated total of $367 billion on health care in California. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 19 2017 04:33 Wulfey_LA wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 19 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/alexnpress/status/886702537637863424 These delusional leftist nuts aren't pushing Dems towards anything. State level single payer plans are guaranteed plans for state bankruptcy. States are not like the federal government because they don't have their own currency and can't borrow and tax the same way the federal government can. States are also subject to adverse selection pressures from the deeply sick and deeply poor flooding high benefit states. State level Dems are wisely not proceeding with single plans because they are guaranteed pathways to state insolvency. If you want to push for state level single payer, then you need to pony up a plan that isn't a fast track to fiscal crisis. EDIT: this is from Mother Jones. Not exactly a hard right source. State level single payer would cost ... DOUBLE the entire California State budget. DOUBLE! Just because Michael Moore had that great movie about Canada-Care doesn't mean Canada-Care can be implemented at the state level. When will the hard left ever start considering actual math? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/single-payer-california-brown-trump/ I find your interpretation of that article highly misleading. Most of the money needed to fund the system is money that is already being used in the private healthcare market, which a single-payer plan would obliterate, meaning over $300b of the $400b required is already given. Not to mention that, according to the article, costs could potentially be lower than the $400b number, as the state could have leeway to renegotiate medical costs. Add onto that the fact that, as opposed to the 7%(3 million) uninsured right now, you would have 0% uninsured, because every person living in the state would be covered. Also worth mentioning the arguable quality of life improvement that comes from not having to agonize over navigating the private healthcare network, which for many is a gigantic pain in the ass. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On July 19 2017 04:51 NewSunshine wrote: I find your interpretation of that article highly misleading. Most of the money needed to fund the system is money that is already being used in the private healthcare market, which a single-payer plan would obliterate. Not to mention that, according to the article, costs could potentially be lower than the $400 billion number, as the state could have leeway to renegotiate medical costs. Add onto that the fact that, as opposed to the 7%(3 million) uninsured right now, you would have 0% uninsured, because every person living in the state would be covered. Also worth mentioning the arguable quality of life improvement that comes from not having to agonize over navigating the private healthcare network, which for many is a gigantic pain in the ass. If Sacremento passed a bill that said: "I am going to triple your taxes and force you on state insurance", then I would fully expect several counties to violently secede. Do you realize how high the transaction costs and friction will be to moving the entire insurance premiums paid by Californians onto the state budget will be? Really think about that. Triple everyone's taxes. Force everyone on state insurance. Kill everyone's insurance that they largely approve of thanks to ACA and a well functioning California insurance exchange. Can you seriously think that isn't a big deal? EDIT: further, what about the people who don't want that? Dems are 60% of California, but that other 40% might not actually want to pay triple taxes and have state insurance. Are your ideas so good that they can be forced onto people like that? ACA was a good enough idea because people really should be mandated to carry health insurance, like car insurance. | ||
|
nojok
France15846 Posts
On July 19 2017 04:33 Wulfey_LA wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 19 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/alexnpress/status/886702537637863424 These delusional leftist nuts aren't pushing Dems towards anything. State level single payer plans are guaranteed plans for state bankruptcy. States are not like the federal government because they don't have their own currency and can't borrow and tax the same way the federal government can. States are also subject to adverse selection pressures from the deeply sick and deeply poor flooding high benefit states. State level Dems are wisely not proceeding with single plans because they are guaranteed pathways to state insolvency. If you want to push for state level single payer, then you need to pony up a plan that isn't a fast track to fiscal crisis. EDIT: this is from Mother Jones. Not exactly a hard right source. State level single payer would cost ... DOUBLE the entire California State budget. DOUBLE! Just because Michael Moore had that great movie about Canada-Care doesn't mean Canada-Care can be implemented at the state level. When will the hard left ever start considering actual math? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/single-payer-california-brown-trump/ All Western countries spend around 9% to11% of their GDP on healthcare with some form of single payer, US spend 17% and don't even cover a massive portion of its population. Unless you let the lobbies dictate the prices, you should win a lot of money. part of GDP spent on healthcare | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 19 2017 04:55 Wulfey_LA wrote: EDIT: further, what about the people who don't want that? Dems are 60% of California, but that other 40% might not actually want to pay triple taxes and have state insurance. Are your ideas so good that they can be forced onto people like that? ACA was a good enough idea because people really should be mandated to carry health insurance, like car insurance. I find it interesting that you distinguish between paying a premium for health insurance, and paying an increased tax for government-managed healthcare. I see no functional difference on an individual level. And if 40% of the population don't think healthcare should be a right, and find some reason to take issue with it being provided for everyone, I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for them. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:02 nojok wrote: All Western countries spend around 9% to11% of their GDP on healthcare with some form of single payer, US spend 17% and don't even cover a massive portion of its population. Unless you let the lobbies dictate the prices, you should win a lot of money. part of GDP spent on healthcare And those are all NATIONAL level healthcare plans. Not state level. And they have dramatically higher middle class tax rates relative to the USA (see, Value Added Taxes). State level single payer plans are state level suicide plans that tend to cost around two times whatever the state's current budget is. I get that leftys want to push single payer really hard as a talisman, but these state level plans are on the merits insanity. If you want to argue the state level plans, pony up arguments at the state level that somehow show how a state can triple its tax take and nuke everyone's insurance with the population consenting to such a thing. EDIT: seriously, if you can't pony up state level arguments then this is just pointless. Citing other countries who did things at other times at different levels of federal organization and at different levels of care is just ridiculous. Also, I have this. State level single payer was a total failure in Vermont. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/poll-shows-hillary-clintons-approval-154617464.html No interest off course,people are so biased and subjective. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:06 NewSunshine wrote: I find it interesting that you distinguish between paying a premium for health insurance, and paying an increased tax for government-managed healthcare. I see no functional difference on an individual level. And if 40% of the population don't think healthcare should be a right, and find some reason to take issue with it being provided for everyone, I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for them. the functional difference may be small; but the "feels" difference is quite large when it comes to voters and how they will respond; and how people can spin it to capitalize on voter responses. it's one of the reasons many things are set up to make taxes/costs more invisible to the people paying them. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9064 Posts
| ||
|
nojok
France15846 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:09 Wulfey_LA wrote: And those are all NATIONAL level healthcare plans. Not state level. And they have dramatically higher middle class tax rates relative to the USA (see, Value Added Taxes). State level single payer plans are state level suicide plans that tend to cost around two times whatever the state's current budget is. I get that leftys want to push single payer really hard as a talisman, but these state level plans are on the merits insanity. If you want to argue the state level plans, pony up arguments at the state level that somehow show how a state can triple its tax take and nuke everyone's insurance with the population consenting to such a thing. It still does not answer the point on how you can spend 50% more of your GDP on health expenditures and still have a terrible coverage. People love healthcare, they love affordable care act, even those who hate obamacare. It really is something people are ready to pay for, it's the number one tax people don't mind to pay. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:12 pmh wrote: Since all the bad ratings for trump get so much attention not only in the press but also on this forum,lets see how the other side has been doing. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/poll-shows-hillary-clintons-approval-154617464.html No interest off course,on to the next post about trump. of course polls aren't directly comparable since they're measuring somewhat different things; and there's different social dynamics affecting each of them. and of course polls have little bearing on actual fitness or anything. but she lost; it's over, who cares what people think of her now. | ||
| ||
