EPThere's a post i made like a year ago about some of the issues related to shifting to single payer
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8738
| 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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
here's a post i made like a year ago about some of the issues related to shifting to single payer | ||
KwarK
United States42568 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote: thing is, if you assume "survival of the fittest" that's still millions of people employed by the companies several hundred billion dollars worth of stock value... which is ultimately held in the retirement accounts/ pensions of millions of americans. here's a post i made like a year ago about some of the issues related to shifting to single payer The companies aren't about to be nationalized without compensation, and the employees aren't about to be executed. There really isn't an issue here. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:29 KwarK wrote: The companies aren't about to be nationalized without compensation, and the employees aren't about to be executed. There really isn't an issue here. GH literally said "survival of the fittest", which sounds an awful lot like "lol let them die". but my point is that going from the current setup to medicare for all is really complicated and barely addressed - nationalization is going to be immensely expensive too. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42568 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote: GH literally said "survival of the fittest", which sounds an awful lot like "lol let them die". but my point is that going from the current setup to medicare for all is really complicated and barely addressed. I think he meant in a market sense where the companies that can successfully adapt to the changing circumstances will do fine, not in a literal thunderdome where all the employees play Highlander. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:30 ticklishmusic wrote: GH literally said "survival of the fittest", which sounds an awful lot like "lol let them die". but my point is that going from the current setup to medicare for all is really complicated and barely addressed. And it won’t be addressed until there is a very really chance it will become law. They need to have hearings and discuss the matter with people in the industry. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23188 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote: thing is, if you assume "survival of the fittest" that's still millions of people employed by the companies several hundred billion dollars worth of stock value... which is ultimately held in the retirement accounts/ pensions of millions of americans. Part of me says "fuck em they made careers/investments in exploiting sick people for profit", but I can recognize there are generally good people that made bad choices that would be hurt by the collapse of their industry. I imagine some people right at the margin (dying soon) could get hosed pretty bad, but most people would probably see more in savings than they would lose in investments (speaking pensions/retirement accounts). Also, most could get out before any legislation passed if they were concerned. From what I gather health insurers run 401k's and not pensions (though I presume you're talking about pensions from other fields). I'm sure it's worth thinking more about, but it's not a reason not to do it. EDIT: And yes I was referring to the market sense of "survival of the fittest" not a literal thunderdome (though, if you wanted to raise money for what to do with the displaced and disinvested...) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Part of me says "fuck em they made careers/investments in exploiting sick people for profit", but I can recognize there are generally good people that made bad choices that would be hurt by the collapse of their industry. I imagine some people right at the margin (dying soon) could get hosed pretty bad, but most people would probably see more in savings than they would lose in investments (speaking pensions/retirement accounts). Also, most could get out before any legislation passed if they were concerned. From what I gather health insurers run 401k's and not pensions (though I presume you're talking about pensions from other fields). I'm sure it's worth thinking more about, but it's not a reason not to do it. EDIT: And yes I was referring to the market sense of "survival of the fittest" not a literal thunderdome (though, if you wanted to raise money for what to do with the displaced and disinvested...) there are millions of regular people employed by insurance companies, right? they have nurses on staff, accountants, customer support reps, tech people, etc.? and this is billions of dollars in investments that's been set aside, mostly by regular people for stuff like retirement sending a kid to college, trying to buy a house) by all sorts of people. it's really fucked up to take it away from them. i don't think you understand the impact that this shift would entail. there absolutely needs to be a plan so millions don't get straight rekt in the pursuit of medicare for all. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23188 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:44 ticklishmusic wrote: there are millions of regular people employed by insurance companies, right? they have nurses on staff, accountants, customer support reps, tech people, etc.? and this is billions of dollars in investments that's been set aside, mostly by regular people for stuff like retirement sending a kid to college, trying to buy a house) by all sorts of people. it's really fucked up to take it away from them. i don't think you understand the impact that this shift would entail. We're talking about ~2.5 million insurance employees, and let's imagine worse case that somehow all of their financial wealth is destroyed. Is it worse than the ~29 million+ on the precipice of financial collapse if they get the wrong sickness? Probably not, so between people dying or being financially disadvantaged I would have to chalk being financially disadvantaged as the lesser evil compared to dead and broke. It's not as if the current system doesn't have costs, like millions haven't already suffered and millions more won't if we just tinker with ACA. It's not that I don't understand the impact the shift would entail, I think it might be that you don't appreciate how bad it already is for millions of people. EDIT: Again if you or someone you care about is invested in exploiting sick people for profit they should get out now whether it passes or not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote: We're talking about ~2.5 million insurance employees, and let's imagine worse case that somehow all of their financial wealth is destroyed. Is it worse than the ~29 million+ on the precipice of financial collapse if they get the wrong sickness? Probably not, so between people dying or being financially disadvantaged I would have to chalk being financially disadvantaged as the lesser evil compared to dead and broke. It's not as if the current system doesn't have costs, like millions haven't already suffered and millions more will if we just tinker with ACA. It's not that I don't understand the impact the shift would entail, I think it might be that you don't appreciate how bad it already is for millions of people. EDIT: Again if you or someone you care about is invested in exploiting sick people for profit they should get out now whether it passes or not. Bro, my wife works in this industry so do a lot of other people. I have not met one of them that is invested in ripping people off because they are sick. Maybe come down from the Mt. Moral Highround and live with the rest of us. There is zero difference between you being concerned with sick people and ticklishmusic being concerned with what will happen to people that will have to change careers. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Again if you or someone you care about is invested in exploiting sick people for profit they should get out now whether it passes or not. I'm all on board with insurance companies thinning down quite a bit. They're basically an institutionalized market inefficiency. That being said, I don't want to blame people who chose insurance companies when looking for a safe place to park their money. Given the way health care works in this country, buying stock in health insurance companies is probably a safe bet right up until a single payer system gets implemented. I think it's been a long time since stock purchases have correlated to anything except what the stock's value is expected to look like in the future. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42568 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:02 Plansix wrote: Bro, my wife works in this industry so do a lot of other people. I have not met one of them that is invested in ripping people off because they are sick. Maybe come down from the Mt. Moral Highround and live with the rest of us. There is zero difference between you being concerned with sick people and ticklishmusic being concerned with what will happen to people that will have to change careers. Aren't they invested in it in the sense that their careers are built off it? I think you both might be using invested differently | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [proof of product] + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JWErruN.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rD5G2y6.jpg) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 15 2017 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote: We're talking about ~2.5 million insurance employees, and let's imagine worse case that somehow all of their financial wealth is destroyed. Is it worse than the ~29 million+ on the precipice of financial collapse if they get the wrong sickness? Probably not, so between people dying or being financially disadvantaged I would have to chalk being financially disadvantaged as the lesser evil compared to dead and broke. It's not as if the current system doesn't have costs, like millions haven't already suffered and millions more won't if we just tinker with ACA. It's not that I don't understand the impact the shift would entail, I think it might be that you don't appreciate how bad it already is for millions of people. EDIT: Again if you or someone you care about is invested in exploiting sick people for profit they should get out now whether it passes or not. i think you're misunderstanding what i'm saying - there are two-ish groups that are affected which i'm talking about. first is the insurance employees - as i said, regular folks including P6's wife. no evil masterminding or anything, just regular americans working pretty regular jobs for pretty regular pay. they are effectively the admin spend that is going down by a shift to a consolidated public system. some of the 2.5m will find jobs as part of the new system and elsewhere, but there are likely hundreds of thousands of people who will have severe trouble finding new jobs comparable to what they had. second is the millions of people who essentially "own" the insurance companies. people invest in the stock market both directly and through things like index funds. unitedhealthgroup, anthem, cigna and aetna are all fortune 500's, and generally speaking as large, stable companies they are a good investment. a lot of regular people have money in them. if the companies are wiped out, then millions - i can probably revise it to tens of millions - of people will be affected. just throwing out a random example, CalPERS (the california public pension system) probably has a few hundred million, maybe even billions invested in insurance companies. if that value gets written down by a large piece, it will impact all the retirees depending on it. On September 15 2017 07:08 KwarK wrote: I don't know why we're accepting the premise of wholesale market collapse should the insurance model change. Consider the two possibilities. Either these people were performing an activity that had economic value, in which case they can continue to do it either way, or they were not, in which case nothing lost. Nationalizing healthcare will only increase the amount of healthcare being sold. Large amounts of services will be privately provided on a reimbursement basis anyway, that's what Medicare for all entails. i'm not, but i want a plan on how the transition is happening because it seems really important and affects a lot of people. if the plan to transition is nonexistent or garbage, then the entire thing could go belly up. though the more likely scenario if there is no plan is the bill just dies. sure, maybe a medical coder or claims adjuster becomes unnecessary with the shift, but i don't want there to be hundreds of thousands of unemployed people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23188 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:02 Plansix wrote: Bro, my wife works in this industry so do a lot of other people. I have not met one of them that is invested in ripping people off because they are sick. Maybe come down from the Mt. Moral Highround and live with the rest of us. There is zero difference between you being concerned with sick people and ticklishmusic being concerned with what will happen to people that will have to change careers. I get it, and I recognize we all gotta live, and it's not as if all of the jobs disappear, many of the workers will still be needed to do what it is they do. For instance the nurses aren't suddenly not needed because the private insurance market shrinks drastically, still the same number of people needing nurses (and more that can afford to get them). Also my lazy phrasing has resulted in us lumping folks together. When I say "investing in profiting off of sick people" that's what I mean. Like if you are literally financially investing in health insurance companies, you are trying to profit off of sick people and I have little empathy. I do recognize things like 401k's can be invested in things like that without awareness of the 401k's owner and those people should be looking and acting accordingly. As for employees, folks who are genuinely helping people will still be needed, those exploiting the sick/employees for profit will be sought out and removed from the system. There is a quantitative difference and a difference between standing up for the least among us and looking out for yourself and people you know/relate with. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:08 KwarK wrote: I don't know why we're accepting the premise of wholesale market collapse should the insurance model change. Consider the two possibilities. Either these people were performing an activity that had economic value, in which case they can continue to do it either way, or they were not, in which case nothing lost. Nationalizing healthcare will only increase the amount of healthcare being sold. Large amounts of services will be privately provided on a reimbursement basis anyway, that's what Medicare for all entails. I don’t think we are. This seems to be a result of the standard dynamic between ticklishmusic and GH. Ticklishmusic wants a more fleshed out plan of how the market transitions from the current system to single payer and says the plan isn’t viable until it happens, sort of implying Sander’s plan is bad. GH responds with gusto and says everyone needs to get out of the way of progress, with slight overtones that people in that industry were just leeching off a broken system or something. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23188 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:20 Plansix wrote: I don’t think we are. This seems to be a result of the standard dynamic between ticklishmusic and GH. Ticklishmusic wants a more fleshed out plan of how the market transitions from the current system to single payer and says the plan isn’t viable until it happens, sort of implying Sander’s plan is bad. GH responds with gusto and says everyone needs to get out of the way of progress, with slight overtones that people in that industry were just leeching off a broken system or something. Hope I cleared up the part about people in the industry? But yeah, I did say it's basically worth thinking more about but it shouldn't stand in the way of getting it done. I was demonstrating that even worst case from Ticklish's objections it would still be worth doing. | ||
| ||
