home

Mend It, Don't End It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:21:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In terms of ObamaCare, my problems with the "market reforms" is a matter of record - I think the regulatory reform/exchanges/mandate is bad policy. I preferred the expansion of public insurance (such as Medicaid expansion, which is the piece of OCare that is unequivocally good and working. But we are where we are - ObamaCare is under fire and extremely unpopular. What do Dems do now?

ObamaCare is not changing any time soon imo. The President won't support any repeal and the GOP won't support any fixes. This means what to do next will necessarily be a 2016 issue.

Here's my modest proposal -- mend ACA as follows - replace the mandate with autoenrollment in Medicare for those persons who either do not qualify for Medicaid or do not have private insurance, using the existing tax credit/subsidy structure where applicable. Simple and effective imo. And politically feasible.

This would have the effect of providing insurance to as many as possible, improving the solvency of Medicare (improving the health of the Medicare pool will lower costs) and be politically popular.

My two cents.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | American People: Fix ACA >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Mend It, Don't End It | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "Calling it the Affordable Care Act" (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:32:56 AM EST
    "has advantages for Democrats seeking to defend health care reform while still criticizing the bungled White House rollout. The phrase polls better than Obamacare".

    They know they have a messaging problem, even though they're willing to admit how wonderful the act is?

    ...........

    "Patriot Act" sounds much better than something like "Fascism Act" or "Dismantling Democracy Act", too. And "War on Terror" sounds far better than "War on Your Own People".

    An initial observation: (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:48:27 AM EST
    it's interesting that suddenly, single-payer is looking a lot more attractive, and people like Nancy Pelosi are admitting that it should have been on the table and part of the discussion.

    Okay, so first things first: "simple and effective" in what way and to whose benefit?  A simple and effective way to get people insured?  A simple and effective way to keep the most marginal individuals out of the private market?  A simple and effective way to turn Medicare into Medicaid Lite, with all the accompanying stigma?  Certainly, the new pool will be younger, but will it be healthier?

    If I can currently drop a private plan in favor of an exchange plan, would I then be able to drop a private plan in favor of a public one?  Or, will there be some kind of disincentive to keep people who qualify for exchange-based or private plans out of the public one?  

    And it's important to appreciate that if you're talking about people who don't qualify for Medicaid and those who still won't have private insurance in three years, you are potentially talking about an estimated 30 million people, because you're going to have to give those who have waivers the ability and option to get covered through the public plan.  Will there still be a waiver available, or will those go away completely, with no one being exempt from having coverage?

    It sounds to me like what you are proposing is a form of "public option," no?  And there will still be private insurance companies in the mix, so it's going to be in their best interests to find ways, within the rules of the ACA, to keep otherwise qualified people who may be more expensive to cover out and push the sickest and poorest off private plans and onto the public one.  If we can even get to 2016 without regulatory changes that would ultimately make that easier - kind of like what has happened to Dodd-Frank.  I am not confident we will get to 2016 with ACA regulations intact and working in favor of subscribers.

    Do you see this as a step closer to a Medicare For All plan, with private insurance eventually existing only to provide gap insurance?

    I do see this as being a huge electoral issue, starting with the upcoming mid-terms and heading into 2016, so it's well worth discussing.  But I also think that there needs to be a concerted push in the direction of single-payer and an effort to educate the public and elect Democrats who will take up that fight.  

    My plan is quasi public option (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    That is if you do not qualify for Medicaid and do not choose private insurance then you default to Medicare.

    Of course, many will do so by choice but that is a feature, not a bug, imo.

    Parent

    Dept. Of NoSh!tSherlock (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    Nancy the fearless Pelosi said the other day, "We should have done single payer".

    Ya think?

    So *now*... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    ...she's saying that?

    What's next? She's going to say maybe we should give the weapons inspectors more time before invading Iraq?

    Parent

    She's also saying (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:32:54 AM EST
    She will consider impeachment charges against Bush. <snark>

    Parent
    Find someone vehemently opposed... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    ...to socialized medicine.

    Then see if they can give you a coherent definition of "socialized medicine".

    Or, for that matter, of "socialism".

    Yes, this would be a good (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    conversation to have.

    Parent
    Come back when you actually know something (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:00:33 PM EST


    medicare (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by the capstan on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:05:00 PM EST
    No, I'd rather that commenter did NOT come back.  (Speaking as someone on medicare that does not smoke, drink, indulge in risky behavior, etc., etc.)

    Parent
    Did you mean Medicaid? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:42:39 PM EST
    Your post would have some crude coherence (at least I can follow along a little bit) if that is what you meant.  If you are talking about Medicare, I have no idea how you come up with anything you just said.

    Honestly, I think some people (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:53:17 PM EST
    don't know the difference until they need one or the other. This poster, though, I think just created an account to do some trash talking. Read all 5 of his comments and you'll see what I mean.

    Parent
    I got a question (1.50 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    Y'all are vociferous in your support of single payer or socialized medicine, whatever.

    Why did the brain trust that foisted this abomination on the public, all true believers such as yourselves?

    Why can none of you acknowledge the pathological dishonesty used to implement this?

    Is it because you know its a sham for the next step which will be hey we tried, now we gotta do what we gotta do?

    Just curious.

    I don't think there are any true believers here (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:50:25 AM EST
    And I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.  Our healthcare system was killing people for profit and statistically Americans were becoming more and more unhealthy because so many had no access to healthcare.

    Obamacare is far from perfect, but polling already shows Americans want it mended, they want to keep several things Obamacare did fix.

    Parent

    How in the (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    world do you figure that the people that "foisted this abomination" upon us were "true believers" in single payer or (gasp) socialized medicine, as many of us are?

    Obama campaigned in 2008 saying he "never said" that we should go ahead and try to get single payer - and Hillary Clinton is quoted above dissing the idea.

    So to whom of the folks foisting this abomination upon us are you referring?

    Parent

    Well (1.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Donald on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    I was kinda fumbling around for a simple easy term, but I notice you didn't touch my question at all.

    So I ask again, you're all on the same page with Barack and his people on, we'll keep this simple, single payer. You want it.  He wants it.  Why wouldn't he go for it?  It's a simple question. And if it was for political purposes only, just a step along the way, why not admit it?

    OMG...Barack Obama does NOT (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    want single-payer - he took it "off the table" right from the get-go, and it was so off-the-table that there were no single payer experts allowed to participate in hearings - and single payer proponents were arrested during a Senate hearing at the request of Max Baucus.

    I might find your wholly ignorant comment hilarious if it weren't just so breathtakingly, well, ignorant; I guess I could hold it up as an example of how willfully ill-informed the American people are, which plays right into the hands of our so-called leaders.  So much easier to sell what you want people to buy if you don't tell them the truth about what their options are.

    I's like to think you were sincere in your question, but I suspect sincerity is not what is behind the questions.

    Parent

    Hillary took single payer (4.00 / 3) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:47:35 PM EST
    off the table too.  The consensus seems to be that single payer sounded too much like socialized medicine.

    There is no earthly way you could put single payer on the table in 2009 after not running on it in 2008.

    Baucus and Conrad and Lieberman were opposed to the Pelosi backed Stupak Amendment version of the health care bill that contained a public option.

    It would be  nice to not constantly and reflexively take every opportunity to attack  Obama.  

    Parent

    No earthly way? Really? (4.33 / 6) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    How do you define leadership, MKS?

    I think Barack Obama could have put almost anything on the table after he was elected, that's how much support he had, not to mention that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

    Do you really think the man who sold the country on hope and change and transparency could not have put those same efforts into single-payer, if he had wanted to?  That he couldn't have found a way to  make single-payer sound less like socialism given that we already have a very popular single-payer system in Medicare?  

    As for Baucus and Conrad and Lieberman, would you have us believe that it was Obama taking his marching orders from them, and that Obama wasn't enough of a leader to get them to carry out his agenda?  Oh, wait, they did carry out his agenda!

    And as we all know, whatever Obama - and Hillary do - is okey-dokey with you, and if they didn't think of it or propose it or campaign on it by some specific point in time that only you can determine, well, we're just out of luck.

    Thank goodness we have you to deliver a daily dose of fawning and genuflecting.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    No, you cannot (3.50 / 2) (#72)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    change on a dime and backtrack to single payer after spending the entire 2008 campaign saying that was not your plan.

    What you are talking about is fantasy.  

    In terms of the Senate, you need the votes.  It is just speculation to say that if only Obama twisted more arms he could have pulled off a public option.  According to Conrad, the opposition to the public option was significant.

    Yes, if you want a full-blown, across the board Canadian-style single payer, you do need to win an election on that plan to be taken seriously.  Because as Hillary has pointed out, the opposition will default to scary sounding rhetoric about socialized medicine, and with your plan for a general 2% tax hike on the Middle Class, the opposition will include the standard anti Walter Mondale rhetoric the GOP is so good at.  And thus you will get little support from elected officials until you win an election that called the question of single payer.

    Parent

    Actually, No! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:50:00 PM EST
    A lot of independents voted for BHO in 2008. They voted for him because they liked the way he talked to people (even people on the other side of the political spectrum), the respect he showed them, for his family man image, etc. They did not vote for Democratic Party policies. They voted for BHO because they liked him as an individual.

    Lot of independents who voted for BHO did not even think that the country needed health care reform. They thought of it as just an agenda of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (of which Pelosi was the public face).

    BHO did not campaign on a platform of raising middle class tax cuts to bring health care to people.

    If you want single payer, you should have to get a candidate to campaign on a single payer platform. The candidate should tell people honestly that taxes will be raised on the middle class and be able to describe all the improvements it would bring to our health care system.

    Parent

    What he DID campaign on (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:55:44 PM EST
    BHO did not campaign on a platform of raising middle class tax cuts to bring health care to people.

    A public option.

    Open, televised, healthcare hearings.

    Allowing imported prescription drugs to reduce prices.

    No backroom deals.

    All forgotten as soon as he no longer needed the votes.

    Parent

    And this has what to (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    do with 2016?

    Your gal is up.  Let's see what she can do....

    Parent

    I really cannot understand (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:21:52 PM EST
    the mindset of some people here.

    BHO's earliest and most vocal supporters were those who were mad about the Iraq war. They looked for a candidate who did not support the decision to go to war and would make ending the war the centerpiece of his campaign.

    Why aren't people who are so interested in single payer approaching HRC or any other candidate to make this issue the centerpiece of the 2016 campaign?

    Parent

    What makes you think they're not? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:30:46 PM EST
    Oh, and I'd love to hear your reaction to this:

    Despite constant public promises by President Obama and his administration that US forces were leaving Afghanistan in 2014 a draft of a US-Afghan security deal details plans for endless war in Afghanistan. Support for the war in Afghanistan is non-existent among the American public which rightly sees it as a waste of blood and treasure. The only ones benefiting at this point are opium dealers in Kabul and war profiteers in Washington.

       The wide-ranging document, still unsigned by the United States and Afghanistan, has the potential to commit thousands of American troops to Afghanistan and spend billions of US taxpayer dollars.

        The document outlines what appears to be the start of a new, open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan in the name of training and continuing to fight al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be ending, but renewed under new, scaled-down US-Afghan terms.

    This draft stands in stark contrast to public commitments Obama made to the American people wherein he declared "as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country."

    I can't understand why you aren't holding Obama accountable for this.

    Parent

    So, it is still about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:37:19 PM EST
    for you even though this thread is about 2016?

    Can't really get you off that topic?

    Parent

    No, it's about the president keeping the (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    promises he did campaign on - something you don't seem to be quite so obsessed with, or at all interested in holding him accountable for.

    Remember how he was going to put the health plan negotiations on CSPAN, so we could all see what's going on?  

    Remember transparency?  Privacy rights?  Did he campaign on being the most secretive administration ever?  

    But then, wherever Obama wants to move the goalposts, you're right there pretending that he's a man of his word.

    And if this thread is about 2016, what are you even doing here - you've already decided Hillary will be the nominee, so what's to discuss?

    Parent

    I do not see the word "Iraq" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    anywhere in what you posted.

    I have consistently advocated more US engagement in Afghanistan than the President is willing (if you have the time, you can go though the archives on this matter), so the question of "holding the President accountable" on Afghanistan does not arise as far as I am concerned.

    Parent

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:49:40 AM EST
    true and we now see the folly of the obsession with one war vote.

    Parent
    Hillary is on the hawkish side (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 08:28:40 AM EST
    It is not just one vote.

    Parent
    ANY serious female candidate (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    for president is going to have to be on "the hawkish side".


    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:01:14 PM EST
    It is her position regardless of gender.  

    I am fine with her views in general, although she can say things from time to time that can take your breath away:  Such as it would be a good idea to investigate those in the State Department for loyalty to America.

    If you are looking for a dove, or someone even like Jimmy Carter, Hillary is not it.  

     

    Parent

    This is what the far left does not get (none / 0) (#145)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    America is a military superpower-unlike any other country in the world. So any American President has to be comfortable using American power. You cannot expect the American President to have the have the same outlook on issues as Prime Ministers of Sweden or New Zealand.

    However, it is very important to choose Presidents who have the intelligence, education, ethics and judgement to use the power wisely.

    The great power of our nation should be used to do great good for the greatest amount of people. IMO, we do not need a dove, we need a President who is comfortable using power wisely.


    Parent

    Newsflash (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    As much as you would like to dream it, a "dove" will never get elected president.  ESPECIALLY not a female one.

    Parent
    No less (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    hawkish than Obama though he campaigned on not being hawkish.

    Parent
    Because their candidate ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    ... has screwed this up so badly that no one - including HC - will be able to touch it for a long, long time - let alone 3 years from now.

    But your passive-aggressive method of responding to my posts is amusing.

    Parent

    Be clear, and I do respond (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:40:32 PM EST
    I am direct.  

    You wander so far into the weeds at times it is hard to know what you are talking about.

    Parent

    That's not "wandering" (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:47:34 PM EST
    That's basic, reading comprehension issues.

    Parent
    You ask (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:43:20 PM EST
    Why aren't people who are so interested in single payer approaching HRC or any other candidate to make this issue the centerpiece of the 2016 campaign?

    Because, HRC ain't interested in single payer and has said so many times.

    She and Barry had that in common in the campaign of 2008.

    A plague on both their houses.

    And as far as approaching some other candidate... How do you know that people aren't looking for a standard bearer regarding our healthcare?

    Of course you realize that in today's America, candidates have to raise millions upon millions of dollars to run. And people opposing entrenched corporations - like the hospital and insurance industries - are not among those with the kind of deep pockets afforded those who play ball with those greedy creeps.

    Parent

    Camel nose under tent (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    is as close as it may get.

    I would like to see a discussion of socialized medicine as the Brits have.  The government employing the doctors directly.  Those Commies the Brits are dying in hovels because of the lack of health care, right?

    Wait times?  Hire more doctors....  

    Parent

    My friend (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    in Commie France has to wait maybe 30 minutes... sometimes 35.

    We have been sold a pos by potus.

    Parent

    France has public insurance (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:58:05 PM EST
    with a lot of people supplementing it with private insurance....They have excellent quality health care but do have a problem with costs.

    Parent
    Aside from the UK (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:04:34 AM EST
    are their other socialized medicine countries in Europe?

    Parent
    Since you're connected (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    to the internet, therefore sitting in the most extensive and thorough library ever invented in the history of humanity, with virtually all knowledge at your fingertips, what did you find when you looked up the answer to your own question?

    Parent
    That you are (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    not much of a leftist.  The great leftist won't even engage in a discussion of British socialized medicine?

    Too afraid of the label "socialist," and you are a leftist?  Good grief, we need better leftists than that.

    Parent

    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    you didn't attempt to look for an answer to your own question, which was not an honest question really, but rather just a transparent trolling attempt. That failed.

    Parent
    Finland, Spain and Israel (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:15:37 AM EST
    have been cited as examples...but Israel seems more single payer than socialized medicine.  Finland comes from an East bloc perspective and is really hard to categorize.

    Perhaps Spain best fits...but it is not all that clear what Spain is doing.  Do you know?

    But you are too afraid of being labeled a "socialist" here, so you do not engage.  A Leftist afraid of the label "socialist."  Interesting.  What is it exactly that you do?

    Parent

    I'm a socialist. (3.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    But anyway, look, you don't have to beat yourself up over making a common mistake. Being dishonest in interactions with other people and asking dishonest questions is a common failing. Happens to millions everyday. I don't think you need to do a full blown Jimmy Swaggart tearful cry on stage or anything that dramatic.

    Probably the best thing to do is just say something like "look, I made a mistake and I'm sorry - I didn't mean to ask a dishonest trolling question, I just couldn't help myself and I promise it won't happen again".

    You know, take a cue from obama or some other personal hero, be pragmatic and say whatever you think will get you off the hook even if it's pure bullsh*t. People are generally kind and often very forgiving and you just never know, somebody might actually believe you.

    Parent

    Throw in... (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    ...Checkers and he'll be right as rain.

    Parent
    Uh Scott, (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    You are not generally part of this gang.  Hope you don't throw it with this dishonest group.

    Parent
    Generally Speaking... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    ...Anne is easily the person here that I agree with most, the Edger is in the top 5.  I don't feel a need to reiterate what they already wrote nor do I have the time to deal with most of the dumbassery they deal with.

    That would be some damn good company if there really was a gang, they would be a gang's gang in these parts.

    Parent

    MKS (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    Malice is not a valid reason to give someone a '1', that is actually reserved for trolls, hence the phrase 'troll post rating'.

    It's my opinion about posters, so the content can't be argued, it's my opinion.

    Why did you rate all of my posts with 1's ?

    Parent

    Upon further review (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    given your other comment, you are going the wrong way.

    Parent
    Can I Trade Mark that Quote (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    Great TL gang membership t-shirts:

    Upon further review given your other comment, you are going the wrong way. -MKS

    That is seriously funny.

    ---------------
    And in this context, "I would like to see a discussion of socialized medicine as the Brits have.  The government employing the doctors directly." I am pretty sure every country with a military has doctors on the payroll, making at the very least, their militarized health care, socialized.

    But seriously, this is what I meant, you have to define the parameters, what doe you mean by socialized healthcare ?  Free healthcare for all, some folks, what do you consider socialized ?  Saying 'like the Brits' when no one has any idea what you know about the Brittan's health care is pretty weak tea.  

    FYI, the UK has various Health care systems, only one being England's.  But Wales, Ireland, and Scotland have their own systems.  In one of the posts you grouped the UK into one system, not true.

    Parent

    Trademark is one word (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    I was discussing this with lentinel. I had just described France's mixed system. It had started out on a reasonable basis.  I had hoped to continue that discussion with him when the braying jackals jumped in to mess it up.

    I have made similar comments about socialized medicine in a number of places....It has been a consistent and honest interest of mine.

    If someone really did not know what I was referring to, they could have asked in a way to keep the conversation going.  

    And, no, fortunately, not everyone here has the approach that Edger and Anne have.  I was disappointed to see you join in.    

    Parent

    My questions was quite honest (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    I did not ask it to any of you....

    You and the standard issue crowd jumped in here and destroyed what could have been a good conversation....

    But you are dishonest fools....

    Parent

    They was, hunh? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    Well, at least you took my advice... :-)

    Parent
    Why are you sitting on your a$$ waiting (3.67 / 3) (#148)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:33:55 AM EST
    for others to educate you on this issue?  Do you not know how to do any research on your own?

    It's all well and good to challenge, but it helps if you actually have a body of information from which to do so.  You don't want to accept or even acknowledge the information that comes from those with whom you do not agree, so I think it falls to you to go find the answers you think you want that support whatever your position is, which, as we all know, depends in large part on what it is Obama is currently for or against.


    Parent

    What he's doing (3.67 / 3) (#149)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:53:50 AM EST
    is called trolling.

    Parent
    No, I am not (1.00 / 2) (#151)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    I am quite serious and have said similar things a number of times.

    You are the one who has the issue here.

    Parent

    See? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:24:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Did you not hear what I said? (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    I am quite open to socialized medicine....If you do not want to discuss, then fine, just go on to another post.  I was not addressing you specifically.

    If you are interested in a open discussion, then posts such as yours do not help.

    I have researched, in an abbreviated fashion, the health care systems of South Korea, Taiwan, France, and Germany within the last couple of days....The UK is the only "democracy" that I know of with true socialized medicine.  If that is our only data point, then fine we can take a look at what they do.  If there is another example of true socialized medicine in a democratic country, I would like to take a look that country too.

    You do not have to participate in this discussion.

    Parent

    You do realize that the term (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:49:04 AM EST
    "socialized medicine" is not a synonym for "single-payer," don't you?

    Via PNHP (bold is mine):

    Is national health insurance `socialized medicine'?

    No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

    The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.

    That you've picked up on the "socialized medicine" label of late leads me to wonder if you might be attempting to attach a negative connotation/perception to single-payer in hope that people will give up on the whole idea.  The single-payer advocates I know are not advocating for a health system like Britain's National Health Service, in which providers are government employees.

    So, if what you really mean is "socialized insurance," or "national health insurance," then you should be using those terms.  If you actually do mean "socialized medicine," you are barking up the wrong tree.  

    Finally, I've lost count of the number of times I've provided you with this link, which covers a lot of information about single-payer and other options, and yet, it apparently isn't among the materials you've chosen to include in your research.

    Odd.

    Parent

    Yes, of course I do (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    I do mean socialized medicine.  What the Brits have.  And, yes, of course no one here is advocating that.  But I find it interesting.  

    Your condescending lecture completely missed the point.  Yes, I know that socialized medicine has a bad connotation.  I wonder if it is deserved.  It seems to me if socialized medicine was fine by even Margaret Thatcher, it can't be all that bad....

    There have been snippets in the news that among younger folk "socialized" or "socialism" are not epithets.  One way to defang conservatives is to say, "what if am?"  It works for Bernie Sanders.

    But see, Anne, you are too invested in your own narrow little narrative....

    Parent

    It's only interesting in the sense that (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    it's a distraction, and not a very well-disguised one.

    Parent
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    Conservatives hold up socialized medicine as the bogeyman.  It is part of the litany of "godless socialist Europe."  As if living in London or the South of France were living in hell. If that is the worst that can happen....

    All this talk about taking single payer off the table during negotiations....and then the palpable fear here of even talking about socialized medicine?

    A discussion of socialized medicine could at the very least make single payer look positively capitalistic by comparison.

    The utter lack of imagination is stunning.  All this talk of how others here seek censorship, and according to you socialized medicine is not an appropriate topic??

    Parent

    It isn't a fear of talking about (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    socialized medicine, it is that we know there already exists a functioning single-payer system with which people have a high degree of satisfaction - Medicare - and it makes no sense to essentially discard that platform, and put the government truly in charge of people's health care.

    We don't need to use socialized medicine as a way of making single payer look good, we have the existing private insurance system for that.

    And I find it highly amusing that you would accuse anyone of lacking imagination.

    Parent

    Can't Anything... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    ...the government does be classified as socialist ?

    From the military to the FDA to NASA to the EPA, they operate from a pool of funds whose recipients receive equal benefits regardless of their contribution.

    But we can't be tagging the military as a socialist institution can we, but no problem doing it to things that don't benefit Corporate America.

    We spend trillions protecting Americans from outside enemies they have never met, but it will be a cold day in hell before we spend a fraction of that keeping them safe from illness and injury that each and every one of us has experienced.

    One is noble, the other is some commie plot to destroy America hatched by freeloaders, when in reality they are doing the exact same thing, keeping people safe from the things that hurt and destroy them.  That is the number one job of government, to protect it's citizens.

    That is why MKS' question was so dumb, without some working definition of what he thinks socialism, in regards to health care, is, it's impossible to answer the question.  Because at some level every government on the planet has some form of socialism in their health care system.  Not one is putting zero dollars towards the health of it's citizens, so the answer is ~200, depending on how you count the number of countries in the world.

    Europe, again depending on you count them, has 45-50 countries with some form of socialized health care.  Just as we do.

    Parent

    Scott, (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    I referenced the UK.  Socialized medicine is clear in that context.

    Don't follow the lemmings.  Read what I write.  

    Parent

    Hilarious: "don't follow the lemmings." (3.67 / 3) (#177)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    Although "lemmings" is one subject you actually do know something about.

    As for your command to "Read what I write," people are reading, it's just that in spite of the hard work you've done trying to change the subject to "socialized medicine," no one's taking the bait.

    You've spent the better part of a month reciting a litany of reasons why we can't or couldn't have single-payer, and now you want to start talking about "socialized medicine" and socialists - because it's "interesting?"  

    And you want to chide us all for not engaging you in your "honest discussion?"  Where were you when those of us discussing the ACA and single payer wanted that same honest discussion with you?  When you were being presented with links and facts and excerpts of articles?  Oh, that's right, you were just squawking bumper-sticker talking points like a parrot.

    ::rolling eyes::

    Parent

    You have not read what I wrote (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    I have said on numerous times that I support single payer and was in fact open to socialized medicine.

    If you actually comment honestly, and actually read what I write, you would know that.

    My point about single payer that you are reacting to was about whether it could or could not have been on the "negotiating table" in 2009.  I have said to get single payer you have to win an election where that question was called, or slip it in under the tent as a public option (which I said earlier upthread.)  

    This was an honest and reasonable discussion I was having with lentinel.  And you and Edger messed it up.  Congratulations. You successfully prevented the conversation and turned it into something else.  In your opinion, it was not a conversation worth having.   Who made you Queen of the May where you dictate what is and what is not a valid conversation.  

    Parent

    I Guess I Should... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    ...followed your lead and marked every post I didn't like with a '1' because that is how you advance the conversation, no comment, just a troll rating.

    Save it, you can't even define what you re looking for other than socialized.  If you read my posts, I was clearly asking for a working definition of what you meant, numerous times.

    None was provided, just non-sense that isn't related to anything other than venting.  If you feel like defining what you are wanting to discuss, do it, otherwise you can save the 'joining the gang' disappointment speech for someone who cares what you think as to why I comment.

    Parent

    I do engage regularly (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    As to the "1" for you, you tossed off some cheesy ad hominem.  And then continued down that path.

    Too bad.  You had not previously joined the nasty set here.

    Parent

    The UK... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    ...is made up of 4 independent health care systems, England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.

    Parent
    "What if I am?" (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:38:53 AM EST


    Parent
    You seem to be under the ... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:30:14 PM EST
    ... impression that you control what people should discuss.

    You don't.

    I was responding to Politalkix's assertion that "BHO did not campaign on a platform of raising middle class tax cuts to bring health care to people."  My point was that - given Obama's repeated backtracking on healthcare reform promises - whether he "campaigned on" it is meaningless.

    But your repeated attempts to attack Clinton before she's even running by tasking her with fixing Obama's mess is completely transparent.

    Not to mention pathetic.

    Parent

    It is a twofer (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    One, I do support Hillary.  And the attack is not on her.   Two, it is fun to watch the relentless critics of Obama when they realize Hillary may not deliver what they want.

    That you react so vehemently shows it does hit close to home....

    Parent

    Of course not (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:51:51 PM EST
    The attack is on Hillary supporters, accusing them of being hypocritical if they don't demand she advocate single payer in 3 years, despite the fact that Obama has now f'd up the issue that it's radioactive.  Not to mention lying about her plan in 2008 - which was a single payer plan according to Obama.

    It's pathetic and transparent, but you go with what you've got, right?

    Parent

    Hillary said (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:00:52 PM EST
    she never considered advocating a single payer plan.   Should you not defer to her to describe her own plan?  Do you not trust her?

    You are mixing and matching....

    And, I hope what I am doing is more than transparent.  I have tried to make it clear I am criticizing you and your ilk.

     

    Parent

    Transparent ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    ... but mostly just pathetic.

    Hillary said she never considered advocating a single payer plan.   Should you not defer to her to describe her own plan?  Do you not trust her?

    False - again.  What she actually said was:  "You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system."  Then, explaining her current (2008) position, she proposed a "Medicare-like", single payer plan."

    The truth hurts, huh?

    Parent

    Wow, that was quite a twist (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:11:05 PM EST
    You have to go on the last sentence I quoted that she thought her current plan would not result in a de facto single payer system....

    Hillary was not saying that after 15 years she changed her mind and decided on single payer.

    Do you really believe this stuff, or are you just being dishonest?

    Parent

    No need to "believe" anything (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:12:41 PM EST
    Just read.

    Parent
    You lose credibility (3.50 / 2) (#109)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    by making such convoluted and dishonest arguments....

    Parent
    Straightforward facts and honesty ... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    Difficult to address head on, huh?

    As far as your assessment of credibility, well ...

    ... that's like Rush Limbaugh assessing the journalistic credentials of Edward Murrow.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:48:10 AM EST
    this might be one time that I agree with you. Truly Obama did not campaign on issues.

    Parent
    Should be (none / 0) (#84)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:13:45 PM EST
    "BHO did not campaign on a platform of raising middle class taxes...."

    Parent
    She and Edwards DID ... (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:09:17 PM EST
    ... run on a single payer plan - Medicare Plus.

    The fact that you're in denial about it is meaningless.

    BTW - You should read the entire interview that is referenced in your link:

     Q: Last question. You talked earlier in the interview about how your plan maintains the private insurance system. But in October, at the forum of the Kaiser Family Foundation, you were asked whether your plan to make government insurance, a Medicare-type plan, available to all was a backdoor route to a single payer system, and you said, "What are we afraid of? Let's see where the competition leads us." So is it okay with you if the market ultimately dictates that the U.S. system sort of morphs into a single-payer system? And if so, doesn't that arm the Republicans with exactly what you were talking about, this claim that it's socialized medicine?

    MRS. CLINTON: No, because I think what we would be offering would be a Medicare-like system, which is something people are familiar with, and you know whether we would call it Medicare 2.0 or whatever we would call it. And we'd see whether people want that or not. And where it morphs to, I think this whole system will morph. I mean, look at where Medicare started and where it is today. In large measure, some of the problems we have are because of the way it evolved. But I think from my perspective, having this Medicare-like alternative really does answer the desires of people. And there's a significant minority who want quote a single-payer system.

    Parent

    I did reference (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    that part of the interview.

    And, Hillary made the distinction between single payer and the public option.  She said she never seriously thought about proposing a single payer system.  Your argument is with her, not me.  I know that must be galling for you, but there it is.

    Parent

    How many times can you be wrong? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:46:03 PM EST
    You must be approaching a record.

    I did reference that part of the interview.

    No, you didn't.  See the part I bolded to make it easy for you?  It appears nowhere in your post.

    And, Hillary made the distinction between single payer and the public option.  She said she never seriously thought about proposing a single payer system.

    Of course she distinguished between them.  They're not the same thing and no one is claiming otherwise.  What she actually said was:

    You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.

    Notice the past tense used?

    Then - the part you ommitted - discussing her present (2008) position:


    "Q: ... But in October, at the forum of the Kaiser Family Foundation, you were asked whether your plan to make government insurance, a Medicare-type plan, available to all was a backdoor route to a single payer system, and you said, "What are we afraid of? Let's see where the competition leads us." So is it okay with you if the market ultimately dictates that the U.S. system sort of morphs into a single-payer system? And if so, doesn't that arm the Republicans with exactly what you were talking about, this claim that it's socialized medicine?

    MRS. CLINTON: No, because I think what we would be offering would be a Medicare-like system, which is something people are familiar with, and you know whether we would call it Medicare 2.0 or whatever we would call it. And we'd see whether people want that or not. And where it morphs to, I think this whole system will morph. I mean, look at where Medicare started and where it is today. In large measure, some of the problems we have are because of the way it evolved. But I think from my perspective, having this Medicare-like alternative really does answer the desires of people. And there's a significant minority who want quote a single-payer system.

    Not to mention the fact that Obama himself called Edward's/Clinton's Medicare Plus plan a single-payer plan.

    Oops.

    Parent

    I said referenced (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    I did not say "quoted."

    Lordy be, you are awful at this.  You really want to argue about this?

    Ever hear the phrase about arguing over "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?"  Described by some scholars to be the subject of actual argument by the Medieval Schoolmen.....

    That was awhile ago....

    Parent

    "Referenced" - Heh (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:59:18 PM EST
    MKS Dictionary

    "Referenced" - v. (past tense)  To conveniently omit because it would show the claim being made to be completely and utterly false."

    Parent

    This was part (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    of my original post:

    She also said she was in favor of a public option or an option for Medicare.  Let the people decide if they want single payer:  

    That sentence appeared in the middle of my quoting other materials.   I think it was a reasonable summary.  I linked to the article so everyone could read the actual text.

    You actually have an argument you could make, but you are so consumed with winning arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of pin that you completely miss it.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 10:14:48 PM EST
    I'm actually making the argument.

    You just can't address it with facts, so you make these silly claims and attempt to divert and distract.

    Yawn.

    Parent

    What would really be nice ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:11:30 PM EST
    ... is if you could address the issue of Obama's position on single payer and his complete reneging on his campaign promises rather than simply mutter,

    "But, .... but ..... Hillary!!!"

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:28:02 PM EST
    but since you ask, I repeat.

    in 2008, Obama had a position on the public option very similar to Hillary.  The chief difference was Hillary was for a mandate and Obama was not.

    Pelosi passed a health care bill with a public option at the expense of the Stupak Amendment.  The bill passed by the skin of her teeth.

    The public option died in the Senate.  Conrad said there were not the votes. Lieberman who caucused with the Democrats and whose vote was needed opposed the public option.  Baucus was none too thrilled.  The Obama critics said he did not try hard enough.  Highly speculative.  

    It is about Hillary because this thread is about 2016.   I think Armando's idea is a reasonable one--both as to scope and timing.  You got a better idea?

     

    Parent

    Yeah (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:37:54 PM EST
    1.  Stop lying about what I said.
    2.  This post is about how to fix Obamacare.  Your standard response to any post about single payer is to say "But, .... but ... Hillary!!!", then falsely claim she didn't propose single payer in 2008.
    3.  You do realize that Obama himself called Medicare Plus a single payer plan, don't you?

    "Let's say that I proposed a plan that moved to a single payer system. Let's say Medicare Plus. It'd be essentially everybody can buy into Medicare for example." - April 3, 2007

    Parent
    Is this the best you (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:56:15 PM EST
    can do to comment on Armando's proposition for 2016 reforms?

    Parent
    By 2008, Obama (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    had disavowed that position.....He did not run on single payer.  Period.

    You know that.

    Parent

    I know he didn't run on single payer (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:03:22 PM EST
    My point was that he - unlike you - recognized the obvious.  Medicare Plus - the plan that Edwards and Clinton ran on - is a single payer plan.

    Parent
    Not according to Hillary (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:09:46 PM EST
    a shown by her quote above that she never seriously considered proposing a single payer plan.

    You should move on.  This thread was about 2016 proposals....

    Parent

    Read the link I provided (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    When she said she never seriously considered a single payer plan, she was speaking in the past tense.  When asked about her present position at that time, she was clear in support of a Medicare Plus system - the system Obama called "single payer".

    You really need to slow down when you're reading.

    Parent

    I didn't say anything about (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:51:53 PM EST
    what you said in my post immediately above.

    And you are wrong.

    Hillary distinguished between single payer and the public option.  As shown by her quote here.

    You contradict yourself on this point in this thread.

    Parent

    Who beside you and Tweedledee give (4.33 / 6) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    a rat's a$$ what precious Hillary did or didn't say 5 fking years ago, and why should it matter today?

    What's really kind of ironic is that, after working so hard to keep single-payer off the radar, having single payer proponents arrested in the Senate hearing room, for god's sake, the complete clusterfk that is the ACA is getting people talking about it - and not just regular people, but politicians.

    I'm sure you'll eventually be telling us that this was the 11-dimensional plan all along, and just further proof of Obama's inscrutable brilliance.

    Jesus.

    Parent

    What Hillary (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    said about healthcare 5 years ago is relevant because she will be the nominee and health care will be a major issue.

    Perhaps she will change her mind.  But right now this is the latest we have on her view of single payer and the public option.

    Parent

    No, I don't (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:07:03 PM EST
    You contradict yourself on this point in this thread.

    Of course there is a difference between single payer and a public option.  I mean - besides the fact that Obama promised the former before he was elected.

    Parent

    You are (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:35:36 PM EST
    talking through your tuchus.

    In one of the debates during the campaign of 2008, Obama said, and I quote:

    I've NEVER said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer.

    Emphasis his.

    So he didn't try.

    And now we have a complete mess.

    Parent

    Socialism (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Donald on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    You're the expert, fill me in

    You're the brand new (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    commenter who is trying to provoke... something. Please read the commenting rules.

    Parent
    If only (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:36:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Excellent idea but (none / 0) (#1)
    by Coral on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:34:09 AM EST
    Could this be done without congressional action? If not, how would you get it through the House?

    This is post 2016 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:42:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Excellent chance for the GOP to triangulate.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    fix Obamacare, be the heroes and champions of health insurance and turn the tide on the demographic Armageddon that is facing them.

    Fortunately for Dems, GOP insanity is off the charts and always will be.

    Parent

    First thing (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:35:20 AM EST
    Change the talking points!

    Unless the federal government... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    ...is going to, contrary to its policies for the last half century, commit the billions of dollars and overcome de-facto bribes to have genuine concern and, thus, offer a regulatory apparatus that is the biggest ever, sans maybe the IRS, to make certain big insurers are not screwing people left and right as they do now. Count me as dubious that a government that stood by and did nothing as average people were conned and thieved from by the financial pirates, that this same government will now, out of the goodness of its heart, regulate the sh*t out of the insurance industry. I mean, seriously, you would need to have, probably, one hundred thousand employees in that regulatory apparatus to actually do the job. Again, count me as very dubious that will happen. But, hey, I hope it all works out, because my severely diabetic sister could really use the break.

    forgive my fragment first sentence (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    rhetoric police arrest me now.

    Parent
    A reasonable proposal (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    I wonder how much support it will get here.  If people are not invested in actually making things work, you get endless criticism and no solutions....

    And I don't think there is an American pol... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:11:24 AM EST
    ...of any consequence who will as yet fight for Medicare for all, or almost all, or a portion of all, without being bribed by the insurance industry, and without having to endure the right wing's madness. I love the idea, would support it, but my rational brain says we're not there yet, too many functionally developmentally disabled minds on the right, desperate, scared, armed. Our side are weak-willed nincompoops who get on their knees for the right every day, afraid of their own shadows, afraid of being labeled a socialist. It is amazing how much heft that words still carries. The fact do anything for its average working citizens citizens that doesn't first have to factor in the "mafia" tribute and "mafia" desires to be satisfied. We are a corporate kleptocracy, and I see no one with any real power willing to make a righteous noise to end it.

    Jaysus, too early for me (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    That should read, "The fact is, this government won't do anything for its average working citizens..."

    Parent
    Here is a better idea. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:49:05 AM EST

    Choice.  As step one, let consumers purchase any health care plan they like without mandate, penalty or subsidy in parallel to the current Obamacare.  

    The Prez has assured us that folks will prefer the Obamacare policies as being so much better.  After all, what 60 year old gay sterile male would not want to pay for a policy with maternity coverage anyway.

    Preferential subsidies? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    There are none.

    But I bet you mean you don;t want to help poor people get insurance.

    The rest of your objections are met by my proposal.

    Parent

    I want (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    to help poor people get insurance.

    I would like to get insurance that I can afford.

    But that, in my left-wing opinion, is the job of the government through equitable taxation.

    As it is now, it is the middle class that is being called upon to shoulder the burden - while the government goes about squandering billions on wars and the weapons of war.

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:48:27 AM EST

    There is nothing wrong with poor people getting a subsidy to by health care services.  That is what the Obamacare subsidies are all about.  Keep them in place.  

    Just let consumers have the choice to purchase other non-Obamacare plans if that that is what those consumers prefer.  

    What is making Obamacare toxic is that many middle class consumers are discovering the subsidies are coming in part from jacked up rates and deductibles rather than from the treasury.  

    Parent

    Nobody's being prevented from (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    buying a private, non-exchange plan now, but if they do, that plan will have to be ACA-compliant and contain the essential health benefits coverages mandated by the plan.

    And there are no subsidies available if insurance is not purchased through the exchange.

    The last paragraph of your comment makes no sense to me.

    Parent

    There two kinds of subsidies (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    .

    One is direct from the treasury.  The other is from forcing other consumers to purchase coverage for services they don't wand or will never use to lower the cost to those that do use them.

    Is it really an essential health benefit for a 60 year old childless gay sterile male to have a policy that has maternity coverage?

    .

    Parent

    Insurance pools risks (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Michael Masinter on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:41:25 PM EST
    Men pay for coverage of ovarian cancer and women pay for coverage of prostate cancer, but so far as I can tell, nobody has argued that pooled risk coverage otherwise known as insurance is an impermissible subsidy.  Your gay male sterile sixty year old may someday decide to reverse his vasectomy, but even if he doesn't he's no worse off than all the men and women who pay for risks to which they are not exposed.

    Parent
    As an infrequent commenter (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    I can understand why you might mistake Abdul's question as an honest, serious query.

    However, speaking for myself, I do appreciate your succinct and concise explanation of how, and why, pooled risk works with insurance coverage for large groups of diverse people.

    Parent

    It is a subsidy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:52:41 PM EST

    when those in the pool don't share the same risk, but pay the same price.  You are right, the cross subsidies in Obamacare are not impermissible, they are a required feature.

    If the state mandated their be one price for homwowner's fire insurance regardless of the size, construction, and replacement cost of the structure, those of us with more modest dwellings would be subsidizing those with palatial digs.

    Do you really think that a 60 year old sterile gay male shares the same pregnancy risk with a 27 year old woman?

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 05:00:08 AM EST
    really do not understand insurance do you? Health insurance is completely different than homeowner's insurance because the risks are stable. You don't know who is going to end up with ovarian cancer or prostate cancer but you can pretty well predict whose home may catch on fire or get hit by a tornado or a flood. There are tornado zones, flood zones and rural areas with only volunteer fire departments which mean the house is likely to burn to the ground before the fire department shows up. The variables in health care are no where near as predictable. Even you cannot predict if a 20 year old is going to have a child. There are a lot of women who do not have children yet you seem to be advocating for them to pay for people having children. The fact of the matter is that is how insurance works.

    Parent
    New Obamacare fix (none / 0) (#139)
    by ragebot on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 05:54:58 PM EST
     Anne may not know her post quoted here:

    "And there are no subsidies available if insurance is not purchased through the exchange."

    is at odds with the administrations newest Obamacare fix which would provide subsidies for insurance not purchased through exchanges.

    Link

    Parent

    This is why most of our welfare system... (none / 0) (#17)
    by redwolf on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:31:48 PM EST
    is not overwhelming popular as most of Europe welfare is.  We give stuff to the poor and the rich while stiffing the middle class and the ACA is a big screw you to the middle class in general.

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    clueless as to how insurance works. Buying insurance is like dating not like buying a can of beans. You may want an insurance policy but the insurer can always turn you down.

    Parent
    Until (none / 0) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:56:39 PM EST

    Until the mandate, you could always refuse to do business with the insurance company.  Virtually every state had subsidized high risk pools so that there was at least one company that would cover you.

    Parent
    Uh, no. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:58:44 PM EST
    Been there, done that.

    Insurance policies are deemed contracts of adhesion not subject to negotiation.  For that reason, they are heavily regulated.

    I would put most of them out of business.  They make money on the float.  It is a financial shell game.

    Parent

    Not all (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    states and the ones that had it made it extremely expensive.


    Parent
    ... or a fertile female wanting to pay.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    ... for your coconut sized prostate.

    Parent
    Hey, Donald... (none / 0) (#16)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    ...tell me more about Tulsi Gabbard.

    I am confused (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    by your claim that:

    "This would have the effect of providing insurance to as many as possible, improving the solvency of Medicare (improving the health of the Medicare pool will lower costs) and be politically popular."

    Why would increasing participation in Medicare result in a healthier pool of participants.

    If the additional participants were non insured from what I will call the young healthy population who don't have insurance because they feel invincible I doubt it would be politically popular with them.

    If the additional participants are from what I will call the unhealthier population then Medicare solvency would not be helped.

    Whoops (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    Whoops meant to say why didn't the brain trust push single payer.

    Hillary on single payer in (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    2008:

    You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system. Obviously, I listened to arguments about its advantages and disadvantages, and many people who I have a great deal of respect for certainly think that it is the only way to go. But I said, as you quoted me, that we had to do what would appeal to and actually coincide with what the body politic will and political coalition building was. So I think if you look at most public opinion surveys, even from groups of people who you would think would be pretty positive towards single payer, Americans have a very skeptical attitude. They don't really know that Medicare is a single payer system. They don't really think about that. They think about these foreign countries that they hear all these stories about, whether they're true or not, which they're often not. And so talking about single payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine and all the rest of this. So I never really seriously considered it.

    She also said she was in favor of a public option or an option for Medicare.  Let the people decide if they want single payer:  

    Q: And if the choice is a single-payer system, that's fine by you?

    MRS. CLINTON: You know, I think that would be highly unlikely. I think that, you know, there's too many bells and whistles that Americans want that would not be available in kind of a bare-bones Medicare-like system but I think it's important to have that competition.

     

    Parent

    Now, I suppose there's a possibility (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    that consummate politician Clinton would summon up something a little less limp than what she said there, if interest in single-payer continues to rise, and she ends up being on the ticket in 2016, but given what she said, perhaps now you know why I have no confidence that she would bring her excellent leadership abilities to the task of moving us toward single-payer.

    Parent
    There's a story... (none / 0) (#113)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:16:49 PM EST
    ...which may or may not have actually happened, about how during the French Revolution or the period just before where a crowd goes rushing by a cafe, and a politician in the cafe leaps up and says "There go my people!  I must see where they are going so that I may lead them!" and rushes out to catch up with them.

    I try to keep that story in mind when it comes to "leaders".

    Parent

    The study and actuality of "leadership" (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    As you seem to suggest, "leadership" isn't what it appears.  It is a lot more than the general issuing a command or the police/fire personnel ordering everyone out of the way or an authoritarian head snapping his fingers.  One thing that studies and courses and theories make clear is that leadership is related to the situation ... not absolute, but situational.

    We hear so much of President Kennedy (especially in this sad week.)  Read or re-read his "Profiles in Courage" where he spoke of different styles, types of leadership as necessitated by different situations.  IMO, one of the most difficult for all of us to grasp even in our "modern" age is the concept and reality of Servant Leader.  In theology and history, the consummate Servant Leader was Jesus.  In the political context, some might question the style as weak or not focused ... in fact, that type of leader looks for the good of others rather than him/herself.  Heck, that person can ever look like a "follower."


    Parent

    Please tell me (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    you are not comparing Obama to Jesus.

    I don't see Obama as a "Servant Leader" at all.  I think he likes the adoration and love of being followed and has a hard time accepting it when he is questioned.

    It seems more and more that his leadership style is more of the "Don't bore me with the details; don't give me bad news; Just let me go out and be loved."

    Parent

    Hey ... don't be facetious (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    I am saying that "leadership" has many paths.  It is an area that has always interested me ... from a theoretical as well as a lived-experience point of view.  A favorite example of myself and a few work friends from many days gone by has to do with the perception of "strength" and "strong leader." Continuing: Our youthful selves considered a certain management director to be wishy-washy (aka "weak)--we wanted a very "decisive leader," one who would be strong, and we had just the person -- only problem was that our favorite turned out to be "strong" in the ways of a petty tyrant.  I never forgot that; the pattern, btw, was repeated occasionally in the Agency over the years.

    There really is no agenda on this matter for me.  Once in awhile, it is nice to be ourselves ... isn't it.  For reasons arising over the years, I developed an interest in what "leadership" means.  What I find fascinating is that sometimes those considering themselves the most progressive lapse into the authoritarian leader model (similar to the T. Adorno model of right-left similarity in authoritarian traits.)  As for President Obama: I meant no comparison ... IMO, the President--as some have written--is not too easy to type-cast given what would appear to be his "introvert" (or something like "academic") propensities.  Definitely, he is not the usual glad-hander or the old-school Executive Spaketh model ... and, there is the obviously very different background.  My take (at this time) is that he may be a lifetime student of consensus building ala a variation of the community-building model.  That, in itself, is a tough transfer to DC.

    Parent

    "Theory" is nice (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    It's great to debate in the ivy covered walls of academia.  It's great in philosphy circles. But there comes a time when, no matter what someone's "leadership" style, it means having to step up, make decisions, and take responsibility (especially when you sure as heck would take credit).

    In other words, no truer words on leadership exists that Harry Truman's "The Buck Stops Here."

    Parent

    Meant to say further (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    As for personal favorite models: Bill Clinton.  The expansive, open, people-to-people Presidential style captivated me and many others.  Gregarious and expressive ... I like that lots.  As a matter of fact, my husband kidded me about being a groupie in the '90s because--as circumstances would have it--I was fortunate to meet and speak with him on several occasions (and, as you might guess, he would answer questions at length with vivacity and looking you straight in the eye.)  Hard not to like.  For a very different reason ... for her dedication, strength, perspicacity, and all-around potential for "leadership," I support Hillary Clinton very much, and hope that she chooses to run.

    The point again: There are different types of leaders for different circumstances and eras.  President Obama is much more circumspect than President Clinton ... and, in the circumstances of disentangling us from two wars and making advances in the broader civil rights area and--especially--in the step forward in Healthcare Reform, I am a proud supporter.  That is where I am ... fully and openly.

    Parent

    The body politic has changed... (4.00 / 4) (#33)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    ...significantly since 2008. In 2008 politicians of all stripes were braying "marriage is between a man and a woman". As of November 2013, 14 states have legalized gay marriage. Those who continue to oppose are shown for the Neanderthal they are.

    Granted, gay marriage is not single-payer. But frankly, I think single-payer -- or Medicare for all, or whatever one chooses to call it -- is a much easier sell to a broader spectrum of the electorate than gay marriage. But one must want to sell it.

    And, in spite of the comments from the right-wingers who mystifyingly continue to comment on this site, the "what-is-single-payer-and-how-would-we-pay-for-it" question isn't all that mysterious to greater and greater segments of the population.

    In any case, comments made in 2008 are only relevant in the context of 2008. I am much more interested in current comments.

    Parent

    PK 's thin skin is showing (3.67 / 3) (#46)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    Really, it's so thin I think his arms must be covered in lesions. Who knows what he/she found objectionable in this comment. I think the objectionable part wasn't the content, it was the "sj".

    When I stop being amused by all this manufactured affront, I may take the time to get clarification of the site rules. That could end up being amusing also. And if not? Well, the "dumbing down" of content that he/she is causing is making this site less informative anyway. Maybe I could use a break.

    I took one from DKos when they got all hostile. That break is going on 5 years now. Sometimes I'll read a linked-to diary but the idiocy and hostility in the comments section have me hot-footing it out of there. It's amazing really, how much nonsense the "no profanity" rule keeps out all by itself.

    I came here because of the Hillary bashing, and because the lies that went with the Hillary bashing stopped actual analysis and thought from taking place. Critical thinking was shut down in favor of the "presumptive" nominee (and it was indeed presumptuous).

    Now that dynamic is already in play. Nearly three years early.

    Have your temper tantrums Politicalkix. It says nothing about me, while speaking volumes about you. All you know how to do is issue challenges, insults and troll ratings. See how revealing that is?

    Parent

    Yes, I know it is all about the (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 06:51:36 PM EST
    "Hillary bashing" for many of the contributors here.  And always has been.

    I do not see PKix bashing Hillary.  I see some rather contorted pre-planned defenses from others that make no sense.  

    I support Hillary in 2016 when many of you are not so clear.  No Hillary bashing here.

    Parent

    I think you need to read (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:08:21 PM EST
    ...what I actually said. I didn't say Politicalkix was bashing Hillary. I said that the dynamic evident in 2008 on DKos was coming into play here. Three years early.

    In 2008, Hillary support was simply the vehicle for the loudest, most mean-spirited commenters to release the Kraken of spite and hostility. Or don't you remember "PUMA! PUMA! PUMA!!!!"

    Apparently leveling insults and deliberately misreading the comments of others was the only way to defend their Chosen Candidate.

    The names may have changed, but the tactics are already coming on-line.

    It wasn't justified then and it isn't justified now. But frankly, I don't have any expectation that you will either read or understand the point being made here.

    Most likely you will just take another clause out of context, just like you did when creating your response to me. Or, if I'm lucky, you'll just ignore it and move along.

    Parent

    Oh my (4.50 / 6) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:18:48 PM EST
    the Obama supporters were the nastiest most arrogant bunch back then but it seems a lot of them have been chastised seeing that unfortunately there was a lot of meat to the criticism of Obama

    Parent
    Mother Mary and Joseph (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 03:33:34 PM EST
    let it go already.

    What is this? five minutes from 2008?

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sj on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:27:10 PM EST
    the parallels to 2008 are all to close to what this is becoming. Which was the point.

    Parent
    It's being (3.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    drug up again by PK it seems. Now all we need is ABG to come by and start something.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by sj on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    That's what we need between the slams of the "far-left" and the "far-left!" and "FA-A-AR LE-E-EFT!!" A good sprinkling of center right talking points while mysteriously claiming kinship with "we liberals".

    Parent
    They really were (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    the Obama supporters were the nastiest most arrogant bunch back then
    It was shameful really.

    Parent
    Someday Politicalkix (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:16:54 PM EST
    will learn how to engage with logic and thoughtfulness instead of a barrage of troll ratings and insults and bullying.

    Parent
    Feh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    who cares what ratings PK gives out. I wear the zeroes like a badge of honor and you should too.

    Parent
    You're right, Ga6thDem (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    And I don't give two hoots what politicalkix thinks. But she is dumbing down the site and there aren't too many with an actual community left.

    For example, I love Avedon Carol posts and links, and her commenters are mostly civil, but since she moved her blog, commenting is an issue and almost non-existent. So there isn't too much feedback on all that good information.

    On the other side is DKos whose structure allows for some good stuff but the comments are moderated only via troll ratings so anything the least controversial gets real ugly, real fast.

    I don't like seeing that happening here. In a couple of years I'm going to want and maybe even need a site where some analysis can be had without degenerating into ugliness. Maybe by then there will be a replacement for TL. But right now I've been looking around and I haven't found one yet.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:45:11 PM EST
    "I wear the zeroes like a badge of honor and you should too"

    How bad are your posts that people give you a "0" rating when the lowest possible rating (AFAIK) is "1"?

    Parent

    Yeah, but we know.... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:09:45 PM EST
    ...they were thinking "zero".

    : -)

    Parent

    One (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 05:04:23 AM EST
    or zero? What's the difference. It's still a troll rating. Whatever. Like I said I really don't care.

    Parent
    Stop acting like a martyr (2.67 / 3) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:31:06 PM EST
    When you have such a thin skin regarding ratings, you should also not be giving out "1" and "2"s to people.

    I do not even reply to your posts because they are vacuous and also because you like to pick up fights. I used the ratings options quite sparingly till about a week ago. Then some things changed.

    You and your little clique have been using the ratings options as a cudgel (even against me who did not reply to your posts) for a long time. So I decided a week ago to give back some of the same medicine when you wrote dishonest posts.

    I will be very happy to never engage with you in the future. I honestly think it is not worth the time. I do not reply to your posts. If you want me to stop giving you bad ratings for your bad posts, you can do something to help yourself. Just stop rating my posts.

    "How would we pay for single payer" is a very relevant question. Feigned surprise about why people are asking this question got you the bad rating in your last post. It appeared very dishonest to me.

    Parent

    And by the way (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by sj on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 02:01:08 AM EST
    If you had actually said this the first time around:
    "How would we pay for single payer" is a very relevant question.
    Instead of leaving your usual lacking-in-self-awareness insults -- such as "feigned surprise" -- and droppings --such as troll ratings, I would have clarified.

    I am tired of telling Jim and everyone else who asks "but, but, but how will we pay for it", that we are already paying for health "services" but right now it is going to to profits and expenses and shareholders of insurance companies first, and to health care second.

    We are already paying more per capita to prop up our "uniquely American" model of health insurance. So yes, how it is paid for is relevant. But it is not mysterious.

    But you couldn't just ask. You had to make assumptions.

    Parent

    The problem is that the legitimate (4.20 / 5) (#119)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:38:21 AM EST
    question of how it gets paid for has been addressed over and over, and you're still acting as if it's still hanging out there unanswered.

    sj again points out the reality that we're already paying.  If we have insurance, we're paying premiums, or a portion of the premiums, we're paying co-pays, we're paying deductibles.  If we don't have insurance, we're paying straight-up for our care - and usually more than those with insurance, since many prices for the insured are negotiated and providers required to accept whatever the reimbursement is.

    We're already paying.  PNHP has proposed - and I have mentioned it and linked to it - a 2% payroll tax on employees, and a 7% payroll tax on employers.  Not in addition to what both are already spending, but instead of what they're already spending.  Do the math.  Do some research on the percentage of revenue employers are spending on health insurance.

    You've had nothing but objections to the whole idea.  Each of your objections has been countered, but in your mind, it can't work.

    But you and I both know that if moving to a single-payer system had been Obama's idea, you would be behind it 110%.  

    For you, it isn't what the issue is, it's where Obama is on it, and if he's good with it, you're good with it.  If he's not good with it, neither are you.

    It will be the same thing with Hillary.  If she runs, she could announce that she wants to have all Americans implanted with RFID chips, so the behemoth national security system can know where we are at all times, and you'd be right here giving us reasons why that's okay.

    We get it: you fall in love with politicians, but the stars in your eyes cloud your vision to where you can't see that they don't love you - they just use your unquestioned adoration to implement policies that ultimately, end up hurting you.  And if they don't hurt you, they hurt a lot of other people, they hurt the foundation and principles on which this country was founded.

    You're an enabler.  And not in a good way.

    Parent

    Here's some math (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:20:29 AM EST
    on those numbers. The last time I looked in my area the median income was 45K. Insurance runs around 800 a month. Generally speaking the employer pays 80% of the cost of the employee and something like 40% of the cost of the family. So a family of four is currently paying approximately $400 a month for their part for insurance and the employer pays the other $400. With the tax proposal the employer would pay $262.50 and the employee would pay $75. So the employer would save $137.50 a month and the employee would save $325. That's a car payment or rent or a house payment or money towards a vacation or any number of things. It's basic business principles of cutting out an expensive middle man that equals cost savings. It's not rocket science.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#140)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    Can you ever write anything without projecting or making assumptions?

    What if I told you that my annual health insurance expenses are currently less than what I would have to pay through your 2% single payer plan?

    Your personal situation is quite different from many people that I know.

    Parent

    Then I would tell you ... (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    ... that you and the people you know are not remotely representative of Americans in general, who pay a helluva lot more than 2% for their healthcare.  In the real world, people pay an average of $9,068 for individual coverage or $16,351 for family coverage.

    For that 2% single-payer tax to not be a "bargain" (as you previously claimed), your average worker for a large employer would have to earn $453,400.  Your average two-earner family would have to exceed a combined income of $408,775.

    Your personal situation is quite different from most people.

    Parent

    Come On. (none / 0) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    The $9068 is cost of family coverage in 2003, not single coverage today.

    $5884 is the average annual premium for a single person.  the 2% number seems low considering if the average median income is around $50k and the cost is around $5k for single, 10% would be the number unless you eliminate the middle man.

    Parent

    I am no martyr (3.40 / 5) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:01:02 PM EST
    a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.
    But I'm happy to provide you with the definitions of the words you use.

    And at least you used words this time.

    And you say you want to be ignored, but your actions show that what that means is that you want to be free to bully whomever, unfettered and unrestricted and unnoted.

    I've said before that I took on my first bully in the second grade, but that wasn't the last time. The most recent time was the bull$hit the Unholy Trinity dumped on jb. Frankly, I would like to get back to sparring with her myself so if you want to be ignored, stop bullying others.

    The only reason I care at all about your shoutdowns is because it is poisonous when all thoughts are not given a good airing. And the next general election is the next "most important election of our lifetime".

    And you are almost singlehandedly doing an excellent job of dividing the community that J has allowed to develop.

    Parent

    Stop stirring the pot (2.86 / 7) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    if you are uncomfortable with the tone of the site.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:11:27 PM EST
    If only it had worked that way. But alas, it did not. Y'all were just as bellicose as ever and all that the hostility was dropped on the unwary.

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    We  got bells and whistles.
    Ding dong and tweet tweet.

    What a merry band these people are.

    Parent

    No kidding (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 07:58:52 PM EST
    She and Edwards proposed Medicare Plus - a single-payer system with the option to participate - just like Medicare.

    This is old news.

    Parent

    She distinguished between (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:03:39 PM EST
    single payer and a public option.  You conflate  the two.  

    Moreover, you had maintained that it was only I who said there was a difference between a public option and single payer.  You were wrong.  The reason I had made the distinction is because the candidates did.

    Parent

    Of course she did (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    There's a difference between single payer and public option.

    Moreover, you had maintained that it was only I who said there was a difference between a public option and single payer.

    I never said that.  You really need to read more slowly.

    Parent

    Can you flesh out how they can (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:58:15 AM EST
    Fight and win the discussion that follows that our economy is fragile and the Democrats are attempting to destroy the insurance industry and all those jobs?

    A start is to be (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by sj on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    honest about the goals of austerity -- which is to benefit the banksters -- so that investment in the US isn't looked upon in horror.

    And a lot of those base line clerical functions still need to happen. I don't have time to look now, but I'm pretty sure I saw a study about how much of the private health insurance human resources would still have a similar function in a single payer system.

    It's been a while so I don't recall details, but it was a larger percentage than I expected it to be. Because you're right that the jobs thing is important and must be addressed.

    Parent

    MT (none / 0) (#142)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    It is not just the medical insurance industry where millions of people are employed at various levels. Cheap drug importation will cause large scale unemployment in the pharmaceutical industry (in the same way importation of cheap consumer electronics caused the hollowing out of American manufacturing). Then you have the medical device industry. Medical device, pharmaceutical and biotech industries are frontier industries of the 21st century. Any conscientious President is not going to let these industries go off shore if can stop it.

    Then ofcourse, you also have other liberal bête noire industries-defense, oil and gas, etc.

    If any President listened to what the far left really wanted, you would have rampant unemployment in this country.

    Those who are wailing like banshees and cant patiently await the ACA website to get fixed expect people who work in medical insurance, pharma, medical device fields to stay calm about job transitions from one health care system to a totally different health care system!

    Transitioning takes time. Any person who has handled any responsibility understands that. The important thing to consider is whether we are moving forward or not in helping more and more people (even if the progress is incremental). IMO, we are!


    Parent

    10.7% Americans are employed (none / 0) (#146)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    in the private sector healthcare industry. This industry is one of the brighter spots in the economy when it came to adding employment.

    How can a change to a totally different healthcare systems not add massive unemployment and disruption to the economy.

    link

    It is not just insurance companies CEO. Lots of people in the middle class including secretaries, clerks, medical technicians, chemists, etc.

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    Busy today

    Well, at least (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    it's not Turkish this time.   ;-)

    Parent
    Mend It, Don't End It | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment