|
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. |
United States43750 Posts
These companies represent large amounts of existing assets. In a worst case market scenario whereby the entire industry was fully nationalized that still only represents a liquidation of the investment, stockholders would receive FMV back from their shares while the companies continued to exist with the state being the owner until such a time as they transitioned into the new public system. And that's the worst case scenario, the Medicare for all scenario has these companies continue to exist as private entities charging members of the public who will pay them using some kind of voucher copay system where the state reimburses most of the costs.
There really is no threat to anyone's 401k here. That's just not a thing. The US government is not about to start seizing the means of production without compensating the capitalist class.
|
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens.
|
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all.
|
On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens.
What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised?
They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly.
|
On September 15 2017 07:24 KwarK wrote:
These companies represent large amounts of existing assets. In a worst case market scenario whereby the entire industry was fully nationalized that still only represents a liquidation of the investment, stockholders would receive FMV back from their shares while the companies continued to exist with the state being the owner until such a time as they transitioned into the new public system. And that's the worst case scenario, the Medicare for all scenario has these companies continue to exist as private entities charging members of the public who will pay them using some kind of voucher copay system where the state reimburses most of the costs.
There really is no threat to anyone's 401k here. That's just not a thing. The US government is not about to start seizing the means of production without compensating the capitalist class.
And I was basically saying that I wouldn't mind it shading closer to seizing without compensation than partnering and paying them off. Though I wouldn't expect anyone but maybe igne to agree (and call for even more seizing).
Which I hope is the kind of place this conversation goes, arguing between seizing and compensation instead of perpetuating the status quo or making it worse (the latter being what Democrats and Republicans preferred)
|
On September 15 2017 07:28 farvacola wrote:
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all.
And I quote myself: 
A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid?
On September 15 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens. What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised? They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly.
Right, though the issue is then we hit the scenario where people holding the stock get kinda fucked. Process of nationalization covered in my old post.
|
On September 15 2017 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:24 KwarK wrote:
These companies represent large amounts of existing assets. In a worst case market scenario whereby the entire industry was fully nationalized that still only represents a liquidation of the investment, stockholders would receive FMV back from their shares while the companies continued to exist with the state being the owner until such a time as they transitioned into the new public system. And that's the worst case scenario, the Medicare for all scenario has these companies continue to exist as private entities charging members of the public who will pay them using some kind of voucher copay system where the state reimburses most of the costs.
There really is no threat to anyone's 401k here. That's just not a thing. The US government is not about to start seizing the means of production without compensating the capitalist class. And I was basically saying that I wouldn't mind it shading closer to seizing without compensation than partnering and paying them off. Though I wouldn't expect anyone but maybe igne to agree (and call for even more seizing). Which I hope is the kind of place this conversation goes, arguing between seizing and compensation instead of perpetuating the status quo or making it worse (the latter being what Democrats and Republicans preferred)
You are talking about seizing 1/3 of the economy and teh assets associated with across 50 states. If you want single payer, you need a plan that doesn't amount to the goverment stealing and calling it for the good of the people.
|
Silly question. How did other countries handle the transition to single payer?
Other countries had this issue before, look at how they did it and make improvements to it where needed.
|
On September 15 2017 07:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:28 farvacola wrote:
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all. And I quote myself: Show nested quote +A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid? Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens. What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised? They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly. Right, though the issue is then we hit the scenario where people holding the stock get kinda fucked. Process of nationalization covered in my old post. You're positing an impossible situation, "forced to sell" is placeholder for the increasingly overwhelming disincentive relative to holding onto the stock of companies getting edged out by government payor market influence. Folks can block the sales just as well as they can buy high and sell low.
|
On September 15 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 15 2017 07:24 KwarK wrote:
These companies represent large amounts of existing assets. In a worst case market scenario whereby the entire industry was fully nationalized that still only represents a liquidation of the investment, stockholders would receive FMV back from their shares while the companies continued to exist with the state being the owner until such a time as they transitioned into the new public system. And that's the worst case scenario, the Medicare for all scenario has these companies continue to exist as private entities charging members of the public who will pay them using some kind of voucher copay system where the state reimburses most of the costs.
There really is no threat to anyone's 401k here. That's just not a thing. The US government is not about to start seizing the means of production without compensating the capitalist class. And I was basically saying that I wouldn't mind it shading closer to seizing without compensation than partnering and paying them off. Though I wouldn't expect anyone but maybe igne to agree (and call for even more seizing). Which I hope is the kind of place this conversation goes, arguing between seizing and compensation instead of perpetuating the status quo or making it worse (the latter being what Democrats and Republicans preferred) You are talking about seizing 1/3 of the economy and teh assets associated with across 50 states. If you want single payer, you need a plan that doesn't amount to the goverment stealing and calling it for the good of the people.
If it was between that and the status quo I'd pick that, but I'm not that unrealistic. I suppose some people forgot about the whole "ask for a loaf" idea Bernie's had for a while. But more power to him for not negotiating away his position for nothing.
|
mexico built a robust public option over the course of a decade - it's a pretty impressive case study actually.
but a public option is what i've been advocating forever.
|
What...
Donald Trump has offered condolences to Mexico’s president one week after the country’s worst earthquake in a century, claiming he had been unable to reach Enrique Peña Nieto for several days because of bad mobile phone reception.
Trump’s condolences represent his first public comments on the earthquake, which took place last Thursday and left an estimated 2.5 million people in need of assistance. Mexico’s minister of agriculture, Jose Calzada, said on Tuesday that the death toll had climbed to 98 people, mostly in the southern state of Oaxaca.
Several US mayors and members of Congress shared their condolences with Mexico in the immediate aftermath of the 8.2 earthquake, as did Canadian president Justin Trudeau. But the White House did not mention the earthquake until Thursday afternoon.
“Spoke to President of Mexico to give condolences on terrible earthquake,” Trump said on Twitter. “Unable to reach for 3 days b/c of his cell phone reception at site.”
Peña Nieto has travelled twice to areas affected by the quake, but has also spent time this week in the national capital.
On Monday he flew to Chiapas state in the afternoon but returned to Mexico City that night. He was in Mexico City on Wednesday morning, before travelling again to Oaxaca and Chiapas states to oversee earthquake relief. Mobile service in the region was working without serious incident, according to accounts on social media.
And Peña Nieto’s Twitter feed has been active since the earthquake. The account has shared dispatches from disaster sites and photos of the the president visiting the affected areas, often photographed by dozens of people carrying cellphones.
It is customary for the US to send messages of condolences to countries hit by natural disasters, and the White House’s silence did not go unnoticed – especially because Mexico had just offered the US aid for disaster recovery.
In late August, Mexico said it would provide food, generators, medical staff and other aid to help victims of Hurricane Harvey in Texas, near the border between the two countries. Mexico withdrew its offer after its own natural disaster.
“Given these circumstances, the Mexican government will channel all available logistical support to serve the families and communities affected in the national territory,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Trump’s explanation for his slow reaction was greeted with scornful disbelief in Mexico – even by critics of Peña Nieto.
“Lies, lies and more lies. Not bad cellphone reception; tardy reaction from bad US president,” tweeted political commentator Denise Dresser.
Peña Nieto’s office confirmed that the two men had spoken on Thursday, but made no reference to any communication problems.
Trump’s message arrived the same day a Pew Research Center poll showed that more Mexicans view the US unfavorably than at any time in the past 15 years. Nearly 65% of Mexicans surveyed said they have a negative opinion of the US.
Source
|
On September 15 2017 07:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
mexico built a robust public option over the course of a decade - it's a pretty impressive case study actually.
but a public option is what i've been advocating forever.
Ya know, a ten, fifteen, or twenty year plan with an end goal of single payer that looks like public option during the meanwhile could very well be what floats out of this.
|
On September 15 2017 07:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 15 2017 07:28 farvacola wrote:
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all. And I quote myself: A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid? On September 15 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens. What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised? They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly. Right, though the issue is then we hit the scenario where people holding the stock get kinda fucked. Process of nationalization covered in my old post. You're positing an impossible situation, "forced to sell" is placeholder for the increasingly overwhelming disincentive relative to holding onto the stock of companies getting edged out by government payor market influence. Folks can block the sales just as well as they can buy high and sell low.
I don't disagree, but the point is troublemakers can make the nationalization process all sorts of nasty. At face value it makes sense to sell as the payors get edged out by the government, but there's enough additional factors at play that maybe someone sees an opportunity to try and squeeze the government to make some money.
On September 15 2017 07:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
mexico built a robust public option over the course of a decade - it's a pretty impressive case study actually.
but a public option is what i've been advocating forever. Ya know, a ten, fifteen, or twenty year plan with an end goal of single payer that looks like public option during the meanwhile could very well be what floats out of this.
And I'd be cool with that, but I'm looking at the actual plan being floated out there right now, not some possible future plan that might come out of it. The ACA ultimately succeeded because the core ideas were mostly written and mostly figured out before Obama was even president.
|
On September 15 2017 07:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:36 farvacola wrote:On September 15 2017 07:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 15 2017 07:28 farvacola wrote:
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all. And I quote myself: A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid? On September 15 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens. What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised? They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly. Right, though the issue is then we hit the scenario where people holding the stock get kinda fucked. Process of nationalization covered in my old post. You're positing an impossible situation, "forced to sell" is placeholder for the increasingly overwhelming disincentive relative to holding onto the stock of companies getting edged out by government payor market influence. Folks can block the sales just as well as they can buy high and sell low. I don't disagree, but the point is troublemakers can make the nationalization process all sorts of nasty. At face value it makes sense to sell as the payors get edged out by the government, but there's enough additional factors at play that maybe someone sees an opportunity to try and squeeze the government to make some money. Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:41 farvacola wrote:On September 15 2017 07:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
mexico built a robust public option over the course of a decade - it's a pretty impressive case study actually.
but a public option is what i've been advocating forever. Ya know, a ten, fifteen, or twenty year plan with an end goal of single payer that looks like public option during the meanwhile could very well be what floats out of this. And I'd be cool with that, but I'm looking at the actual plan being floated out there right now, not some possible future plan that might come out of it.
Well this is how it works, us radicals push for something and then you moderates can water it down enough to make it palatable and we end up with something better than we had before we all started. Problem in 2016 was Hillary was giving us tap water with a potato in it and calling it vodka.
|
you guys come up with something unworkable that is directionally correct, we come up with the actual legislation and plan to make things work you mean.
and bernie was selling a unicorn when he didnt even have a donkey.
|
On September 15 2017 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 15 2017 07:36 farvacola wrote:On September 15 2017 07:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 15 2017 07:28 farvacola wrote:
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all. And I quote myself: A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid? On September 15 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens. What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised? They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly. Right, though the issue is then we hit the scenario where people holding the stock get kinda fucked. Process of nationalization covered in my old post. You're positing an impossible situation, "forced to sell" is placeholder for the increasingly overwhelming disincentive relative to holding onto the stock of companies getting edged out by government payor market influence. Folks can block the sales just as well as they can buy high and sell low. I don't disagree, but the point is troublemakers can make the nationalization process all sorts of nasty. At face value it makes sense to sell as the payors get edged out by the government, but there's enough additional factors at play that maybe someone sees an opportunity to try and squeeze the government to make some money. On September 15 2017 07:41 farvacola wrote:On September 15 2017 07:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
mexico built a robust public option over the course of a decade - it's a pretty impressive case study actually.
but a public option is what i've been advocating forever. Ya know, a ten, fifteen, or twenty year plan with an end goal of single payer that looks like public option during the meanwhile could very well be what floats out of this. And I'd be cool with that, but I'm looking at the actual plan being floated out there right now, not some possible future plan that might come out of it. Well this is how it works, us radicals push for something and then you moderates can water it down enough to make it palatable and we end up with something better than we had before we all started. Problem in 2016 was Hillary was giving us tap water with a potato in it and calling it vodka.
I'm definitely going to remember this line.
|
On September 15 2017 07:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:36 farvacola wrote:On September 15 2017 07:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 15 2017 07:28 farvacola wrote:
You force them to sell though a gradual incentive based government exchange program. Get on the bus or it leaves. This idea that single payer amounts to a cliff that we just have to jump off in order for it to work is not realistic at all. And I quote myself: A couple roadbumps here: the board can't just say "okay cool we want to be bought out". There are shareholders, and the board members have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders basically meaning they have to act in the shareholder's interest. If not, the vote may be invalid and the aggrieved shareholders could sue. If a big enough chunk of shareholders don't want to sell, the sale isn't going to happen even if a big chunk of shareholders want to cash out with a 60% return. Expect some investors, very likely some who are against government takeover of insurance, to block the sales. Maybe you could figure something out, but it would require a lot more money and/or some nasty use of government power/ eminent domain.
An incremental approach also seems possible where the government takes over a few insurers at a time. But gee, that would kind of look like a public option!
Now that we're past that, the American government is now the proud owner of a trillion dollar industry. Now, it has to figure out how to streamline the entire thing and rebuild it. I guess that for a start we can look at the profits from these companies and then essentially call those savings. Maybe over a really long time this alone will be worth the sticker price the government paid? On September 15 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
I wrote about that exact scenario in my linked post. Taxpayer is gonna have to shell out like a trillion bucks or something. And what if someone says, fuck you, we aint selling?
By my assessment, a plan isn't much of a plan if it's missing several rather important steps. Right now it looks to me like someone has designed a dream home, but hasn't completely figured out how much it's gonna cost and where the inhabitants are going to live while the remodel happens. What happens when a company doesn't want to be nationalised? They decline and keep going as they were, except for the fact that they have no more customers so they go bankrupt pretty much instantly. Right, though the issue is then we hit the scenario where people holding the stock get kinda fucked. Process of nationalization covered in my old post. You're positing an impossible situation, "forced to sell" is placeholder for the increasingly overwhelming disincentive relative to holding onto the stock of companies getting edged out by government payor market influence. Folks can block the sales just as well as they can buy high and sell low. I don't disagree, but the point is troublemakers can make the nationalization process all sorts of nasty. At face value it makes sense to sell as the payors get edged out by the government, but there's enough additional factors at play that maybe someone sees an opportunity to try and squeeze the government to make some money. Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 07:41 farvacola wrote:On September 15 2017 07:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
mexico built a robust public option over the course of a decade - it's a pretty impressive case study actually.
but a public option is what i've been advocating forever. Ya know, a ten, fifteen, or twenty year plan with an end goal of single payer that looks like public option during the meanwhile could very well be what floats out of this. And I'd be cool with that, but I'm looking at the actual plan being floated out there right now, not some possible future plan that might come out of it. The ACA ultimately succeeded because the core ideas were mostly written and mostly figured out before Obama was even president.
From where I'm sitting, you're letting all of the bad baggage associated with "single payer" mix with a refusal to acknowledge that Bernie's plan is a legislative first step that will absolutely change during the passage process. The vast majority of landmark bills have not been enacted in the form they were first proposed, and given how far left this kind of health reform is in the eyes of the Republicans, the unrealistic aspects of Bernie's proposal as it stands figure more as points of negotiation than legitimate policy sticking points.
Even if it were to somehow pass through relatively unchanged, that kind of unusual event would likely lead to companion bills aimed at addressing its side-effects. The world in which that happens is a pretty crazy place though, so I'm not sure any of us can say what makes sense there.
Like, even though I think this argument sucks, one could even suggest that Obamacare starting too far to the right in the first place played a figurative role in its getting judicially cut down and turned into the soso-at-best system we currently have.
|
i'd prefer my legislative first step to actually be something that is generally workable. there is a different between a first draft and a final draft of anything, but the first draft should actually be complete before submission. this is not.
|
Evidence #1,985. If She's not the center of attention she lashes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
