|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 05 2020 03:57 mikedebo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 02:27 Dan HH wrote:On April 05 2020 01:08 iamthedave wrote:
In fairness - while I agree this would be an improvement - that would mean he never speaks out on any issue ever. This isn't about speaking, it's about the official roles he's joining on task forces. If Megadeth asked you to fill in for their drummer would you say "ask an actual drummer" or "sure thing, lemme just watch some youtube tutorials on how to hold a stick"? Isn't that pretty close to what happened with Shawn Drover? I mean, he was clearly a drummer, but he'd never played in any close to Megadeth scale before and then was on some major tour right away. I read some interview from him about almost fainting or something when he saw the crowd.
I don't think a drummer that's been playing for decades in relative obscurity joining a massive band is at all close to the scenario in my shitty analogy or to the topic at hand. I went out on a limb and assumed iamthedave never touched a drumstick (apologies if he's actually Dave Lombardo).
|
On April 05 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 02:28 Nyxisto wrote:On April 05 2020 01:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
~30 million people may be losing their private insurance over the next months
This officially kills the "you're going to take private healthcare away from people" part of the bipartisan opposition to Medicare for All now right? Not really because I don't think there's any Democrat who opposes offering universal health insurance to anyone who needs or wants it. The issue of the argument is to not eliminate private insurance for people who want to keep it. I mean obviously there are or it would have passed when they had total control under Obama. Hillary wouldn't have said it would never ever happen, and Biden wouldn't be arguing against it based on cost. The idea that people want to keep their private insurer is based off a desire to maintain preferential treatment over others no matter how you slice it though from my perspective. EDIT: Also no one wants universal/"affordable" insurance, people want universal care.
Obamacare is a universal healthcare bill, in principle at least. The reasons why there are still uninsured Americans is a mix of the supreme court making Medicaid enrollment optional which left room for a bunch of states not expanding Medicaid, the immigration status of some subset of the population, and people not choosing to enrol.
|
On April 05 2020 03:01 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like until Bernie, Biden and Trump all recover from Corona, we have zero idea what November looks like. Super weird. They could all die. Or none of them. No way they die, they’re all guaranteed top notch medical care, Id be unbelievably surprised if they died, in spite of their old age.
Some very important people died in Iran. Guarantee you a place like Iran gave them the best of the best of the best of medical care. Didn't matter.
|
On April 05 2020 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2020 02:28 Nyxisto wrote:On April 05 2020 01:00 GreenHorizons wrote:~30 million people may be losing their private insurance over the next months https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1246118093350469633This officially kills the "you're going to take private healthcare away from people" part of the bipartisan opposition to Medicare for All now right? Not really because I don't think there's any Democrat who opposes offering universal health insurance to anyone who needs or wants it. The issue of the argument is to not eliminate private insurance for people who want to keep it. I mean obviously there are or it would have passed when they had total control under Obama. Hillary wouldn't have said it would never ever happen, and Biden wouldn't be arguing against it based on cost. The idea that people want to keep their private insurer is based off a desire to maintain preferential treatment over others no matter how you slice it though from my perspective. EDIT: Also no one wants universal/"affordable" insurance, people want universal care. Obamacare is a universal healthcare bill, in principle at least. The reasons why there are still uninsured Americans is a mix of the supreme court making Medicaid enrollment optional which left room for a bunch of states not expanding Medicaid, the immigration status of some subset of the population, and people not choosing to enrol.
So it isn't universal care in reality, which is what people want. Not universal insurance bills and deductibles paid to for-profit corporations and public access left to the mercy of the SC and Republicans. Regardless there's Biden's argument against M4A that is budget based and the fundamental premise of people with private insurance wanting to maintain preferential treatment from our for-profit system.
The same for-profit system exacerbating this pandemic in ways ranging from billing, coordination, and basic PPE hoarding.
|
|
|
Ironically the ACA is a lot closer to Medicare for all US citizens than Medicare for All is (minus the penalty for not enrolling, though there's a de facto penalty for not bothering to enroll in A since you already paid for it). Still has premiums, still has copays, means-tested, all of which I think have been cut from Medicare for All at this point. If anything the ACA's approach to prescription coverage is way better than Medicare's right now-the government has a lot more control over coverage of smoking cessation products for ACA plans than they do Part D plans.
Still shocked that that name gained such traction when it drastically undersells the benefits for everyone and doubly undersells it to those who already, you know, have Medicare and represent a huge chunk of the population. The power of inertia and branding, I guess. "What poorly informed people think Medicare is for all" just didn't have the same ring to it.
|
On April 05 2020 07:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Ironically the ACA is a lot closer to Medicare for all US citizens than Medicare for All is. Still has premiums, still has copays, means-tested, all of which I think have been cut from Medicare for All at this point. Especially for Part D.
Still shocked that that name gained such traction when it drastically undersells the benefits for everyone and doubly undersells it to those who already, you know, have Medicare and represent a huge chunk of the population.
Because "Medicare" has bipartisan support and most people understand their medical coverage about as much as they could tell you what's in a apple T&C agreement.
"Government needs to keep its hands off my Medicare" is a classic example of why the messaging matters more for mass appeal than the actual service provided. Republicans that wanted to keep catastrophic style low-premium private plans when the ACA came up are another example. In that case Democrats had enough spine to mostly not lie about them losing their private plans and explain why that was good.
EDIT2EDIT:The power of inertia and branding, I guess. "What poorly informed people think Medicare is for all" just didn't have the same ring to it.
Pretty much. In a country that elected Trump thinking he's a good businessman you have to meet your audience where they are.
|
On April 05 2020 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 03:01 Zambrah wrote:On April 05 2020 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like until Bernie, Biden and Trump all recover from Corona, we have zero idea what November looks like. Super weird. They could all die. Or none of them. No way they die, they’re all guaranteed top notch medical care, Id be unbelievably surprised if they died, in spite of their old age. Some very important people died in Iran. Guarantee you a place like Iran gave them the best of the best of the best of medical care. Didn't matter.
I'd hope the US would bring it's touted "best healthcare in the world" for it's politicians, but I will concede that they could die.
I still can't say I think its likely, but it could maybe happen. I guess it really depends on how the people themselves take it. I could imagine Biden having it for like a week before anyone found out 'cause he just didnt know or say anything, what with being so whacked out.
|
On April 05 2020 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:On April 05 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2020 02:28 Nyxisto wrote:On April 05 2020 01:00 GreenHorizons wrote:~30 million people may be losing their private insurance over the next months https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1246118093350469633This officially kills the "you're going to take private healthcare away from people" part of the bipartisan opposition to Medicare for All now right? Not really because I don't think there's any Democrat who opposes offering universal health insurance to anyone who needs or wants it. The issue of the argument is to not eliminate private insurance for people who want to keep it. I mean obviously there are or it would have passed when they had total control under Obama. Hillary wouldn't have said it would never ever happen, and Biden wouldn't be arguing against it based on cost. The idea that people want to keep their private insurer is based off a desire to maintain preferential treatment over others no matter how you slice it though from my perspective. EDIT: Also no one wants universal/"affordable" insurance, people want universal care. Obamacare is a universal healthcare bill, in principle at least. The reasons why there are still uninsured Americans is a mix of the supreme court making Medicaid enrollment optional which left room for a bunch of states not expanding Medicaid, the immigration status of some subset of the population, and people not choosing to enrol. So it isn't universal care in reality, which is what people want
If universal is taken to mean that every undocumented and homeless person or anyone against their volition signs up then the world has no universal healthcare system, and the US won't in 100 years. Every country has people that fall through the grid for some reason or just refuse to participate in a program.
A reasonable definition of a universal system is, can anyone who wants to or needs to sign up and will they be covered? That is what the ACA was as I understand it if it weren't for factors out of the hand of Obama and whoever wrote the bill.
This does not require to eliminate private healthcare of people who are perfectly happy with their choice. You can cover 100% of the population with a mix of private and public healthcare, some of it can be for-profit, some of it isn't. There's nothing in the real world that forces anyone to choose between offering private services to people who want to pay for it and providing good healthcare to everyone who needs it.
Politically trying to eliminate the private healthcare of the 100 million or so who are perfectly happy with it is probably political suicide.
|
On April 05 2020 09:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2020 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2020 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:On April 05 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2020 02:28 Nyxisto wrote:On April 05 2020 01:00 GreenHorizons wrote:~30 million people may be losing their private insurance over the next months https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1246118093350469633This officially kills the "you're going to take private healthcare away from people" part of the bipartisan opposition to Medicare for All now right? Not really because I don't think there's any Democrat who opposes offering universal health insurance to anyone who needs or wants it. The issue of the argument is to not eliminate private insurance for people who want to keep it. I mean obviously there are or it would have passed when they had total control under Obama. Hillary wouldn't have said it would never ever happen, and Biden wouldn't be arguing against it based on cost. The idea that people want to keep their private insurer is based off a desire to maintain preferential treatment over others no matter how you slice it though from my perspective. EDIT: Also no one wants universal/"affordable" insurance, people want universal care. Obamacare is a universal healthcare bill, in principle at least. The reasons why there are still uninsured Americans is a mix of the supreme court making Medicaid enrollment optional which left room for a bunch of states not expanding Medicaid, the immigration status of some subset of the population, and people not choosing to enrol. So it isn't universal care in reality, which is what people want If universal is taken to mean that every undocumented and homeless person or anyone against their volition signs up then the world has no universal healthcare system, and the US won't in 100 years. Every country has people that fall through the grid for some reason or just refuse to participate in a program. A reasonable definition of a universal system is, can anyone who wants to or needs to sign up and will they be covered? That is what the ACA was as I understand it if it weren't for factors out of the hand of Obama and whoever wrote the bill. This does not require to eliminate private healthcare of people who are perfectly happy with their choice. You can cover 100% of the population with a mix of private and public healthcare, some of it can be for-profit, some of it isn't. There's nothing in the real world that forces anyone to choose between offering private services to people who want to pay for it and providing good healthcare to everyone who needs it. Politically trying to eliminate the private healthcare of the 100 million or so who are perfectly happy with it is probably political suicide.
I'd take universal to mean people that need care get it and you don't worry about if the human being is undocumented, homeless, or didn't sign up. Because regardless of whether they are homeless, undocumented, or signed up they deserve to get care. Presumably you're not kicking these people out of hospitals and medical facilities, so instead the burden is hot potatoed between charities, hospitals, and paying patients. The obvious detriment to public health of not helping them and having a single payer system is all that more apparent during this pandemic.
As to private healthcare, while profiting from sick people and people that want preferential treatment is inherently unethical imo, I don't think criminalizing it is necessary.
The "100 million that are happy with it" is losing people "with it" by the millions each week, so perhaps we need some more current data (not sure where you get that 100 million are happy with it from?) as to how satisfied people are with their health insurance. Especially when they are paying thousands of dollars for COVID-19 treatments even with insurance.
|
ACA is not universal health care. It is universal health insurance. This concept only works for those with the means to pay for it.
Having worked for one of the largest PBM in the country, most of the management could not be trusted to throw a rope hanging next to them to drowning man without asking for a 9000$ copay and having confirmation that it is in their bank account. I experienced multiple instances where they violated the law to save pennies, or just to delay an expense for a few weeks (signed judge's order gets sent - orders are to ignore it). It won second worst place in the US to work, the year Sears was running its crazed libertarian experiment.
That's why I'm for eliminating private healthcare. My experience is that the companies involved are run by sociopaths at best. Can I say that about all of them with 100% confidence ? No, but I can say that about 50% of the PBM they use easily.
Sovaldi is the classic example I point to - we could wipe out hep c entirely but it wouldn't be as profitable, so we don't.
I can easily believe that a mixed system works better than our current one, but I'm skeptical when others point at countries where a mix has worked correctly. Those countries probably have better regulations and the culture at their workplaces is probably better.
|
|
|
Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary?
|
On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? Doesn't the state party branch decide how and what happen, not the national DNC ?
|
On April 08 2020 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? Doesn't the state party branch decide how and what happen, not the national DNC ?
Not exactly. For instance the DNC is (as of the most recent info I've seen) penalizing states for delaying their primary. But generally speaking the state Democrats should determine their primary process (though clearly the DNC wields influence).
The question applies regardless though.
|
My understanding is that there's a general election going on as well, and it's got some very critical positions up - like state supreme court (who helped enforce this farce). So Republicans are desperate to have it happen today, when the fewest people possible are likely to vote as this always helps them. I'm not totally sure of this calculus since so many people are unemployed, but they're operating like it's a normal situation.
Cancelling the democratic primary would probably hand over all the elections to the GOP, is probably the current thinking - it's exactly what the republicans would want.
Now, it may be morally correct to cancel them anyway, but short of a black tie riot like republicans pulled to delay Florida recounts in 2000, there's not really anything that could delay the general elections.
|
Gonna depends on each state’s legal framework governing the relationship between state parties and the state government elections body. I would guess most states are setup to give the government side the final say on issues like moving the primary, perhaps with trigger dates or something like that.
|
On April 08 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? Doesn't the state party branch decide how and what happen, not the national DNC ? Not exactly. For instance the DNC is (as of the most recent info I've seen) penalizing states for delaying their primary. But generally speaking the state Democrats should determine their primary process (though clearly the DNC wields influence). The question applies regardless though.
It's not just the Dem Primary. It's also the statewide election for a State Supreme Court seat and there's a ballot question about amending the state constitution to include a form of Marsy's Law: https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Marsy's_Law_Crime_Victims_Rights_Amendment_(April_2020).
|
On April 08 2020 01:31 Nevuk wrote:
My understanding is that there's a general election going on as well, and it's got some very critical positions up - like state supreme court (who helped enforce this farce). So Republicans are desperate to have it happen today, when the fewest people possible are likely to vote as this always helps them. I'm not totally sure of this calculus since so many people are unemployed, but they're operating like it's a normal situation.
Cancelling the democratic primary would probably hand over all the elections to the GOP, is probably the current thinking - it's exactly what the republicans would want.
Now, it may be morally correct to cancel them anyway, but short of a black tie riot like republicans pulled to delay Florida recounts in 2000, there's not really anything that could delay the general elections.
So they can delay their primary and are choosing not to for political expediency? That sounds like a gross moral abdication.
On April 08 2020 01:33 farvacola wrote:
Gonna depends on each state’s legal framework governing the relationship between state parties and the state government elections body. I would guess most states are setup to give the government side the final say on issues like moving the primary, perhaps with trigger dates or something like that.
That seems like piss poor planning (if true) that is going to get people sick/dead as a result of today.
Here's what voting in Wisconsin looks like today:
|
On April 08 2020 01:33 WorthlessSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2020 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 08 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can anyone explain why Democrats are saying they are helpless to stop their own primary in Wisconsin today? I'm aware it is not exclusively a Dem primary, but how is it that Republicans decide when and how Democrats have their primary? Doesn't the state party branch decide how and what happen, not the national DNC ? Not exactly. For instance the DNC is (as of the most recent info I've seen) penalizing states for delaying their primary. But generally speaking the state Democrats should determine their primary process (though clearly the DNC wields influence). The question applies regardless though. It's not just the Dem Primary. It's also the statewide election for a State Supreme Court seat and there's a ballot question about amending the state constitution to include a form of Marsy's Law: https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Marsy's_Law_Crime_Victims_Rights_Amendment_(April_2020). In a sane world this would simply get delayed until such a time as it is safe to hold, like other countries have already done with their elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
