What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
Like if I'm the CEO at Beelzebub Insurance and someone is proposing MfA + private plans basically what they're telling me is that all the healthy people who don't usually have serious medical expenses will no longer want to do business with me but I'll be free to pay for the expensive stuff.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
That’s pretty much the point though I wouldn’t necessarily say *just* the rich.
I get government healthcare and it’s leagues better than the nothing I had before and what a lot of people have now. But there have definitely been times I would be willing to pay more money for a better or different experience, particularly regarding dental.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
That’s pretty much the point though I wouldn’t necessarily say *just* the rich.
I get government healthcare and it’s leagues better than the nothing I had before and what a lot of people have now. But there have definitely been times I would be willing to pay more money for a better or different experience, particularly regarding dental.
Better or different in what way though? Because while its called MfA its not really just heres the government insurance but for everyone.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
Expanding options for care not being shackled to what we can pass the Senate for one. If this has passed in the 90s trans people would be unable to get medical care in the US. This isn't an unreasonable concern- one thing the NHD, Canada and many European countries are bad at is exactly that.
Two, it's more likely to actually you know exist. Health insurance companies are bizarrely popular- even current Medicare involves a lot of them via Medicare advantage and such. Telling people you're taking away their care but it'll be fine really is risky. And that's *before* you start having the fights about abortion access, LGBT rights, etc.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
Expanding options for care not being shackled to what we can pass the Senate for one. If this has passed in the 90s trans people would be unable to get medical care in the US. This isn't an unreasonable concern- one thing the NHD, Canada and many European countries are bad at is exactly that.
Two, it's more likely to actually you know exist. Health insurance companies are bizarrely popular- even current Medicare involves a lot of them via Medicare advantage and such. Telling people you're taking away their care but it'll be fine really is risky. And that's *before* you start having the fights about abortion access, LGBT rights, etc.
Your first objection seems predicated on the idea that we cant expand further after passing.
Im so sick of the half measure being told its the best we can get and winding up with *gestures around*
We're not telling people we're taking away their care, we're telling them we're getting rid of the guy between them and their doctor. People want health care, not insurance.
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I apologize for misreading your position, Phoenix-D. We don't disagree on strategy, we disagree on ideal outcomes.
Personally, any legislation that doesn't provide universal coverage, free at the point of service, and as part of a larger push for health justice, is a partial and incremental reform at best.
Medicare Extra is vague but already includes premiums and out of pocket costs. It fails to entirely divorce health coverage from employers and it includes regulatory exceptions for small businesses.
With regard to service offerings, what environment we're starting that conversation in matters too. If we adopt single payer MfA and down the road we look into expanding that to cover more dental or elective cosmetics or whatever we can do it purely from the perspective of "is the feasible on the program budget and operation capacity".
If private insurance remains a factor then any expansion in what is covered by the government has to include a fight against insurance companies as you eat into their market.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
That’s pretty much the point though I wouldn’t necessarily say *just* the rich.
I get government healthcare and it’s leagues better than the nothing I had before and what a lot of people have now. But there have definitely been times I would be willing to pay more money for a better or different experience, particularly regarding dental.
Better or different in what way though? Because while its called MfA its not really just heres the government insurance but for everyone.
My dental as an example is an extremely uncomfortable experience because topical anaesthetic has no effect and the local anaesthetic isn’t always effective. So every time I’m usually a jittery nightmare not sure if I’m about to feel nerve endings. I’d use nitrous oxide if I could, but my healthcare doesn’t generally include it. So long as I’m active duty though I don’t really have much of a choice. Once I’m a civilian though I wholly intend to purchase supplemental dental coverage in addition to my government care.
I would imagine there are other people with analogous situations where government provided healthcare would absolutely cover everything necessary but would potentially be willing to pay for things that would personally vastly improve their quality of life.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
That’s pretty much the point though I wouldn’t necessarily say *just* the rich.
I get government healthcare and it’s leagues better than the nothing I had before and what a lot of people have now. But there have definitely been times I would be willing to pay more money for a better or different experience, particularly regarding dental.
Better or different in what way though? Because while its called MfA its not really just heres the government insurance but for everyone.
My dental as an example is an extremely uncomfortable experience because topical anaesthetic has no effect and the local anaesthetic isn’t always effective. So every time I’m usually a jittery nightmare not sure if I’m about to feel nerve endings. I’d use nitrous oxide if I could, but my healthcare doesn’t generally include it. So long as I’m active duty though I don’t really have much of a choice. Once I’m a civilian though I wholly intend to purchase supplemental dental coverage in addition to my government care.
I would imagine there are other people with analogous situations where government provided healthcare would absolutely cover everything necessary but would potentially be willing to pay for things that would personally vastly improve their quality of life.
That's a fair concern. I was more referring to the resort treatment the wealthy sometimes pay more for. I don't think any of us will shed any tears for that loss.
I will say MfA as Sanders proposes it covers dental and it would be reasonable to say that that should include anesthetics in line with patient needs, though I'm not sure things are far enough along that a decision has been made there.
That said, worst case scenario here is that you get your medical work covered by the government and are on the hook for nitrous out of pocket, but does that set you back farther than premiums?
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
Expanding options for care not being shackled to what we can pass the Senate for one. If this has passed in the 90s trans people would be unable to get medical care in the US. This isn't an unreasonable concern- one thing the NHD, Canada and many European countries are bad at is exactly that.
Two, it's more likely to actually you know exist. Health insurance companies are bizarrely popular- even current Medicare involves a lot of them via Medicare advantage and such. Telling people you're taking away their care but it'll be fine really is risky. And that's *before* you start having the fights about abortion access, LGBT rights, etc.
Your first objection seems predicated on the idea that we cant expand further after passing.
Im so sick of the half measure being told its the best we can get and winding up with *gestures around*
We're not telling people we're taking away their care, we're telling them we're getting rid of the guy between them and their doctor. People want health care, not insurance.
The Senate isn't going away and if anything will likely be more annoying in the future. And the examples I use either haven't expanded (the NHS has a four year wait to see trans specialists and a treatment regimine at least 15 years out of date) or only recently started expanding (Canada).
I mean we could end up with the health care reform we had in the 90s. Nothing. Or end up with the Alabama and company dictating abortion coverage.
And you tell people you're removing their health insurance and they will react like they're losing care.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
Expanding options for care not being shackled to what we can pass the Senate for one. If this has passed in the 90s trans people would be unable to get medical care in the US. This isn't an unreasonable concern- one thing the NHD, Canada and many European countries are bad at is exactly that.
Two, it's more likely to actually you know exist. Health insurance companies are bizarrely popular- even current Medicare involves a lot of them via Medicare advantage and such. Telling people you're taking away their care but it'll be fine really is risky. And that's *before* you start having the fights about abortion access, LGBT rights, etc.
Your first objection seems predicated on the idea that we cant expand further after passing.
Im so sick of the half measure being told its the best we can get and winding up with *gestures around*
We're not telling people we're taking away their care, we're telling them we're getting rid of the guy between them and their doctor. People want health care, not insurance.
The Senate isn't going away and if anything will likely be more annoying in the future. And the examples I use either haven't expanded (the NHS has a four year wait to see trans specialists and a treatment regimine at least 15 years out of date) or only recently started expanding (Canada).
I mean we could end up with the health care reform we had in the 90s. Nothing. Or end up with the Alabama and company dictating abortion coverage.
And you tell people you're removing their health insurance and they will react like they're losing care.
I don't think its necessary to remind single payer advocates of political difficulties, we're been fighting them for years. However, incrementalists have always under estimated the corrosive nature of profit seeking and the lengths private insurance companies will go to.
And it wouldn't be all or nothing. If we push for single payer and fail the ACA is still in place. The centrists will still have their reform package in the legal code.
Citing the issues in getting transition oriented care is kind of odd though because its basically been like maybe 10 years since treating trans people universally like dog shit was the absolute rule in the entire West. That fight is still on going and you see its incomplete nature in all kinds of government programs, not just health care, but I don't see that as an argument against single payer.
Furthermore, I don't see how the disposition of the Senate is a serious point to pick between MfA or Medicare + Insurance. Either way you're going to have to get Democrats in control and then lobby them heavily.
Do we really think that there's a strong caucus in the Senate Dems that will say "No, no MfA but yes I'll support universal Medicare plus extended private coverage"? That was basically the hope for ACA advocates and it didn't pan out.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I’m all for Medicare for All. We already cover the oldest among us, and they are the most expensive.
To cover everyone it would cost roughly 3 trillion.
Which is a little less than what we spend on healthcare anyways, and it’ll cover every man woman and child, effectively we’d spend the same or slightly less and get so much more.
What does Medicare + Private offer over MfA? Insurance companies could still legally exist under MfA, there just wouldn't be any niche for them to fill, excepting the rich who want to be treated arbitrarily better.
Expanding options for care not being shackled to what we can pass the Senate for one. If this has passed in the 90s trans people would be unable to get medical care in the US. This isn't an unreasonable concern- one thing the NHD, Canada and many European countries are bad at is exactly that.
Two, it's more likely to actually you know exist. Health insurance companies are bizarrely popular- even current Medicare involves a lot of them via Medicare advantage and such. Telling people you're taking away their care but it'll be fine really is risky. And that's *before* you start having the fights about abortion access, LGBT rights, etc.
Your first objection seems predicated on the idea that we cant expand further after passing.
Im so sick of the half measure being told its the best we can get and winding up with *gestures around*
We're not telling people we're taking away their care, we're telling them we're getting rid of the guy between them and their doctor. People want health care, not insurance.
The Senate isn't going away and if anything will likely be more annoying in the future. And the examples I use either haven't expanded (the NHS has a four year wait to see trans specialists and a treatment regimine at least 15 years out of date) or only recently started expanding (Canada).
I mean we could end up with the health care reform we had in the 90s. Nothing. Or end up with the Alabama and company dictating abortion coverage.
And you tell people you're removing their health insurance and they will react like they're losing care.
I don't think its necessary to remind single payer advocates of political difficulties, we're been fighting them for years. However, incrementalists have always under estimated the corrosive nature of profit seeking and the lengths private insurance companies will go to.
And it wouldn't be all or nothing. If we push for single payer and fail the ACA is still in place. The centrists will still have their reform package in the legal code.
Citing the issues in getting transition oriented care is kind of odd though because its basically been like maybe 10 years since treating trans people universally like dog shit was the absolute rule in the entire West. That fight is still on going and you see its incomplete nature in all kinds of government programs, not just health care, but I don't see that as an argument against single payer.
One more time: you realize I prefer the other options outright, yes? I'm not preferring them because they're more likely to pass, that's a bonus?
And I don't think you can say with a straight face that you'd prefer the current situation to the other described plans.
I bring up transition care partially as an example. Because it's improved in the US faster than elsewhere. Patchy as fuck because, well, the US system is kinda broke, but improvement.
The fact that the dogshit US system was able to improve faster is a big red flag. Single payer systems don't allow for patchy improvement and I don't trust that a certain segment of the progressive caucus wouldn't throw certain issues under the bus to pass the plan, thereby making my health care much worse. Or the SC pulls a Hobby Lobby on us re the plan.
You also keep talking about lobbying. Here's the thing. That's going to happen regardless. The Sanders plan passes as it currently is, somehow. The instant it does the lobbying to gut it will start. That's true of any of them.
And I don't think you can say with a straight face that you'd prefer the current situation to the other described plans.
I don't view any plan that doesn't rip the cancer of private insurance out root and stem as sustainable in the long run. So yeah, like Medicare + insurance or what have you would be better than now, maybe for a generation or so, maybe. But then Aetna and Blue Shield and the like start funding candidates who want to "save costs" and fight any expansion in services and before long you're left with a public option that is wildly insufficient while everyone is back to private insurance to get real treatment.
I bring up transition care partially as an example. Because it's improved in the US faster than elsewhere. Patchy as fuck because, well, the US system is kinda broke, but improvement.
Placing the blame for, for example, the U.K's slow adoption of better trans treatment on the fact that its a single payer system seems spurious at best. Its not like the UK in general is fantastic on the topic and its just having a hard time steering the ship.
You also keep talking about lobbying. Here's the thing. That's going to happen regardless. The Sanders plan passes as it currently is, somehow. The instant it does the lobbying to gut it will start. That's true of any of them.
Gotta be in business to have a lobby. Like yeah, I'm sure if MfA passes there'll be some health insurance lobbying to work against, but their days will be numbered if we can fight it off. If you leave them a niche to fill they won't stay in it.
And I don't think you can say with a straight face that you'd prefer the current situation to the other described plans.
I don't view any plan that doesn't rip the cancer of private insurance out root and stem as sustainable in the long run. So yeah, like Medicare + insurance or what have you would be better than now, maybe for a generation or so, maybe. But then Aetna and Blue Shield and the like start funding candidates who want to "save costs" and fight any expansion in services and before long you're left with a public option that is wildly insufficient while everyone is back to private insurance to get real treatment.
I bring up transition care partially as an example. Because it's improved in the US faster than elsewhere. Patchy as fuck because, well, the US system is kinda broke, but improvement.
Placing the blame for, for example, the U.K's slow adoption of better trans treatment on the fact that its a single payer system seems spurious at best. Its not like the UK in general is fantastic on the topic and its just having a hard time steering the ship.
You also keep talking about lobbying. Here's the thing. That's going to happen regardless. The Sanders plan passes as it currently is, somehow. The instant it does the lobbying to gut it will start. That's true of any of them.
Gotta be in business to have a lobby. Like yeah, I'm sure if MfA passes there'll be some health insurance lobbying to work against, but their days will be numbered if we can fight it off. If you leave them a niche to fill they won't stay in it.
It isn't just health insurance companies. It'll be conservatives wanting to only cover child abuse as transition care (conversion therapy). Or restricting abortion access or anything else they think violates their "religious freedom". Or trying to underfund the health system to kill it. Or trying to ban vaccine coverage. Or..you get the idea. Not having insurance companies around removes only part of the pressure.
And I don't think you can say with a straight face that you'd prefer the current situation to the other described plans.
I don't view any plan that doesn't rip the cancer of private insurance out root and stem as sustainable in the long run. So yeah, like Medicare + insurance or what have you would be better than now, maybe for a generation or so, maybe. But then Aetna and Blue Shield and the like start funding candidates who want to "save costs" and fight any expansion in services and before long you're left with a public option that is wildly insufficient while everyone is back to private insurance to get real treatment.
I bring up transition care partially as an example. Because it's improved in the US faster than elsewhere. Patchy as fuck because, well, the US system is kinda broke, but improvement.
Placing the blame for, for example, the U.K's slow adoption of better trans treatment on the fact that its a single payer system seems spurious at best. Its not like the UK in general is fantastic on the topic and its just having a hard time steering the ship.
You also keep talking about lobbying. Here's the thing. That's going to happen regardless. The Sanders plan passes as it currently is, somehow. The instant it does the lobbying to gut it will start. That's true of any of them.
Gotta be in business to have a lobby. Like yeah, I'm sure if MfA passes there'll be some health insurance lobbying to work against, but their days will be numbered if we can fight it off. If you leave them a niche to fill they won't stay in it.
It isn't just health insurance companies. It'll be conservatives wanting to only cover child abuse as transition care (conversion therapy). Or restricting abortion access or anything else they think violates their "religious freedom". Or trying to underfund the health system to kill it. Or trying to ban vaccine coverage. Or..you get the idea. Not having insurance companies around removes only part of the pressure.
I mean yeah, Single Payer isn't going to solve social conservatives. I never said it would, that's another fight. But what it solves is health insurance companies funding efforts to undermine care for their own profit.
If you can take away their ability to cut huge checks to politicians I think you're going to find a lot fewer politicians trying to "reform" your public health care system.
Any other plan is, to my mind, trying to reform capitalism but its a system that's incompatible with a long term goal of meaningful universal free at point of service health care.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
If we're talking about likelihood of being passed, I think there's something to be said for the relative ease of explaining M4A versus the Center for American Progress plan, which is extremely the kind of thing that self-described 'wonks' love and normal people groan and rub their temples as they load up the website to explain how to use the website that will take an entire evening of their lives before they learn what their coverage options and costs are. That shit is directly related to voter engagement and turnout.
Centrist technocrats do not inspire people. Nobody comes out in the street for a means-tested modest reduction in costs as advocated by a neoliberal think tank the President of whom is known for blistering hot takes like 'I don't understand why progressives are in favor of the French protests because fuel taxes fight climate change' and which last year donated $200k to the American Enterprise Institute, re-affirming that these people care more about inside baseball and making sure they're all still invited to one another's cocktail parties than anything to do with our class interests.
the President of whom is known for blistering hot takes like 'I don't understand why progressives are in favor of the French protests because fuel taxes fight climate change' and which last year donated $200k to the American Enterprise Institute
lmao, christ
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
the President of whom is known for blistering hot takes like 'I don't understand why progressives are in favor of the French protests because fuel taxes fight climate change' and which last year donated $200k to the American Enterprise Institute
lmao, christ
Neera Tanden is terrible.
+2
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Edit: I should say that I'm in the "hard no" camp for providing healthcare to illegal immigrants.
I'm not going to address your edit because I don't think it has a high likelihood of us continuing to be excellent to each other in this thread.
Regarding employees capturing the money, I think that's legitimate but also as an employee I don't particularly care. I have relatively good health coverage; my job is a lot of people with families and that's just a part of compensation they prioritize. Especially as a young, healthy person, if I could get something almost as good without having to rely on my employer, I don't care if they're saving the money. Every business that's not already scraping profit from this arrangement should be all-in for saving those costs and not having to dedicate huge resources to evaluating, enrolling, and managing employee health insurance coverage.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The decoupling of health care and employment is also step one to removing the boot most peoples employers have on their neck.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Edit: I should say that I'm in the "hard no" camp for providing healthcare to illegal immigrants.
Yeah im thinking there would have to be a serious worker movement to claw back that compensation.
As for illegals though, just think how much cheaper tax payer funded preventive care is than personally eating unpaid hospital bills
I don't want to derail the thread on page 1, so I'll just say that a comprehensive reform package would solve this without the optics of a "doctors for illegal immigrants" proposal.
So you’re okay with covering illegal immigrants, just a hard no on saying that out loud?
The omission of dental (and vision) coverage from most of the plans is pretty horrible and something that's easily fixed. Otherwise I'm a fan of MFA, with Medicare Extra seeming like a good backup.
Dental is still considered mostly cosmetic by a lot of people and was considered cosmetic enough and not important enough that it was excluded from most UHC systems in countries that instituted them decades ago.
It doesn't make sense to exclude it now because it is a big cost for the poor and one of the ways the poor get harmed when it comes to health care given how much bad teeth can harm a person.
Edit: From a purely political standpoint, I don't think excluding it does anything positive. Any additional cost that makes the cost of UHC look higher is probably not enough to matter at all. The total cost of UHC is high enough that few people would mentally see the additional cost as making it much more costly. Nobody is going to go "Wow, $Texas is fine, but $Texas+much less than $Texas is too high!" All the arguments about efficiency, already paying for it, net savings on average, etc. would apply either way.
As someone in a UHC system that doesn't include dental: get dental in there.
The idea that dental is not necessary health care is so much bullshit, as anyone who's had dental issues can tell you.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Edit: I should say that I'm in the "hard no" camp for providing healthcare to illegal immigrants.
I'm not going to address your edit because I don't think it has a high likelihood of us continuing to be excellent to each other in this thread.
Regarding employees capturing the money, I think that's legitimate but also as an employee I don't particularly care. I have relatively good health coverage; my job is a lot of people with families and that's just a part of compensation they prioritize. Especially as a young, healthy person, if I could get something almost as good without having to rely on my employer, I don't care if they're saving the money. Every business that's not already scraping profit from this arrangement should be all-in for saving those costs and not having to dedicate huge resources to evaluating, enrolling, and managing employee health insurance coverage.
I want to have the most charitable reading here, so please don't hear me as being confrontational but
are you saying that, as a young healthy person, you don't care if it makes things worse for families and the ill as long as you get something almost as good from the govt instead? That sounds like what you're saying!
Spool is right that removing health care from worker compensation to social service is a cut in compensation for workers, but that doesn't make it on net a bad thing for workers. Workers will need to fight to regain that compensation in other forms.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
Seriously, benefits are 100% part of your compensation package. Wages + benefits is what you are getting paid.
You can see this most explictly in union shops, where your union will literally negotiate for those benefits along with salary increases and with what form your compensation comes in being moved around during negotiation as your union angles for the best deal it can get. This is true even under a lot of UHC systems, where you get extra coverage on top of your government provided/paid-for coverage as a part of your compensation from your employer. (there's a big history to the healthcare system in the US and wage growth tied to this as well, with many unions having traded wage increases for benefits many decades ago but that's getting a bit off topic)
You can also see this fairly explicitly in contract work where you can get paid more in part because the company is not providing you with any benefits.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
We could start with, in the most disruptive* implementation, where government provided healthcare immediately and completely replaces private care, money that was formerly given to the insurance provider is now paid to the government (by the business, on behalf of the individual) as a tax. Alternatively, the individual can elect to continue with employee provided healthcare at the negotiated rate (where that's an option), or if the individual elects to go with a government plan, the business pays that premium instead.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
If we lived in a perfect world I'd say that employers would have to cover whatever tax raise was necessary through a salary increase, and since they're no longer paying out for insurance it would probably be easily doable.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
But what if i chose this shitty job because of the great benefits because I have a family and need that.
Just leave it I guess and try to find other work? Go to the job tree where jobs grow on jobbies?
An insurance setup that doesn't rely on your employer would actually make it easier to claw back some of the compensation and rights that the rich owe the working classes. I mean they wouldn't be able to hold insurance over people's heads to discourage people from leaving or demanding the correct amount of compensation.
I'm sure some will try to pocket the money they were spending on health insurance and quickly find out that it's a bit easier for their employees to walk. Though, the funding for this stuff should definitely hit those fuckers first, they aren't paying their fair share and I'd argue a ton of stuff that benefits them directly at the expense of the lower and middle classes, usually comes at the expense of those classes's health. So it would only be fair.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
That lack of worry doesn't really make up for the thousands in compensation that just poofed away.
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
That lack of worry doesn't really make up for the thousands in compensation that just poofed away.
Then you need your union to renegotiate the contracts.
It seems very wrong to oppose UHC on these grounds. It'll be annoying for a few years until your wages catch up or the union manages to renegotiate, but then you will have healthcare for life instead of until when the CEO decides to move the factory to China. You haven't lost *anything* - it just *feels* bad, like selling stock just before the peak and making a lot of money but not as much as you could have. And many more other people have gained life-saving health insurance. You won't be expected to throw money in those crowdfunding pots for underinsured people to have surgery anymore, nice huh?
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
But what if i chose this shitty job because of the great benefits because I have a family and need that.
Just leave it I guess and try to find other work? Go to the job tree where jobs grow on jobbies?
If the benefits are better than the UHC plan, shouldn't you be expecting your employer to continue them? (Unless we are talking the pure Sanders plan which disallows private insurance, but the others don't)
I'm down for the Sanders plan or this "Extra for All" thing perhaps.
My biggest question is how employees are going to be able to capture all that money that their employers are currently paying to the insurance companies.
Raise the business tax, use that on premium reduction or elimination.
Effectively this is the government dramatically lowering my compensation package though.
No it is not. If it ever happens it would your company providing a benefit you no longer care about. Your compensation is identical to what it was before, and now your healthcare goes with you everywhere for the rest of your life, no matter what job you do.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
That lack of worry doesn't really make up for the thousands in compensation that just poofed away.
Then you need your union to renegotiate the contracts.
It seems very wrong to oppose UHC on these grounds. It'll be annoying for a few years until your wages catch up or the union manages to renegotiate, but then you will have healthcare for life instead of until when the CEO decides to move the factory to China. You haven't lost *anything* - it just *feels* bad, like selling stock just before the peak and making a lot of money but not as much as you could have. And many more other people have gained life-saving health insurance. You won't be expected to throw money in those crowdfunding pots for underinsured people to have surgery anymore, nice huh?
But he has. The person in this hypothetical has literally lost substantial compensation from their employer.
Posts
That’s pretty much the point though I wouldn’t necessarily say *just* the rich.
I get government healthcare and it’s leagues better than the nothing I had before and what a lot of people have now. But there have definitely been times I would be willing to pay more money for a better or different experience, particularly regarding dental.
Better or different in what way though? Because while its called MfA its not really just heres the government insurance but for everyone.
Expanding options for care not being shackled to what we can pass the Senate for one. If this has passed in the 90s trans people would be unable to get medical care in the US. This isn't an unreasonable concern- one thing the NHD, Canada and many European countries are bad at is exactly that.
Two, it's more likely to actually you know exist. Health insurance companies are bizarrely popular- even current Medicare involves a lot of them via Medicare advantage and such. Telling people you're taking away their care but it'll be fine really is risky. And that's *before* you start having the fights about abortion access, LGBT rights, etc.
Your first objection seems predicated on the idea that we cant expand further after passing.
Im so sick of the half measure being told its the best we can get and winding up with *gestures around*
We're not telling people we're taking away their care, we're telling them we're getting rid of the guy between them and their doctor. People want health care, not insurance.
Personally, any legislation that doesn't provide universal coverage, free at the point of service, and as part of a larger push for health justice, is a partial and incremental reform at best.
Medicare Extra is vague but already includes premiums and out of pocket costs. It fails to entirely divorce health coverage from employers and it includes regulatory exceptions for small businesses.
If private insurance remains a factor then any expansion in what is covered by the government has to include a fight against insurance companies as you eat into their market.
My dental as an example is an extremely uncomfortable experience because topical anaesthetic has no effect and the local anaesthetic isn’t always effective. So every time I’m usually a jittery nightmare not sure if I’m about to feel nerve endings. I’d use nitrous oxide if I could, but my healthcare doesn’t generally include it. So long as I’m active duty though I don’t really have much of a choice. Once I’m a civilian though I wholly intend to purchase supplemental dental coverage in addition to my government care.
I would imagine there are other people with analogous situations where government provided healthcare would absolutely cover everything necessary but would potentially be willing to pay for things that would personally vastly improve their quality of life.
That's a fair concern. I was more referring to the resort treatment the wealthy sometimes pay more for. I don't think any of us will shed any tears for that loss.
I will say MfA as Sanders proposes it covers dental and it would be reasonable to say that that should include anesthetics in line with patient needs, though I'm not sure things are far enough along that a decision has been made there.
That said, worst case scenario here is that you get your medical work covered by the government and are on the hook for nitrous out of pocket, but does that set you back farther than premiums?
The Senate isn't going away and if anything will likely be more annoying in the future. And the examples I use either haven't expanded (the NHS has a four year wait to see trans specialists and a treatment regimine at least 15 years out of date) or only recently started expanding (Canada).
I mean we could end up with the health care reform we had in the 90s. Nothing. Or end up with the Alabama and company dictating abortion coverage.
And you tell people you're removing their health insurance and they will react like they're losing care.
I don't think its necessary to remind single payer advocates of political difficulties, we're been fighting them for years. However, incrementalists have always under estimated the corrosive nature of profit seeking and the lengths private insurance companies will go to.
And it wouldn't be all or nothing. If we push for single payer and fail the ACA is still in place. The centrists will still have their reform package in the legal code.
Citing the issues in getting transition oriented care is kind of odd though because its basically been like maybe 10 years since treating trans people universally like dog shit was the absolute rule in the entire West. That fight is still on going and you see its incomplete nature in all kinds of government programs, not just health care, but I don't see that as an argument against single payer.
Do we really think that there's a strong caucus in the Senate Dems that will say "No, no MfA but yes I'll support universal Medicare plus extended private coverage"? That was basically the hope for ACA advocates and it didn't pan out.
To cover everyone it would cost roughly 3 trillion.
Which is a little less than what we spend on healthcare anyways, and it’ll cover every man woman and child, effectively we’d spend the same or slightly less and get so much more.
One more time: you realize I prefer the other options outright, yes? I'm not preferring them because they're more likely to pass, that's a bonus?
And I don't think you can say with a straight face that you'd prefer the current situation to the other described plans.
I bring up transition care partially as an example. Because it's improved in the US faster than elsewhere. Patchy as fuck because, well, the US system is kinda broke, but improvement.
The fact that the dogshit US system was able to improve faster is a big red flag. Single payer systems don't allow for patchy improvement and I don't trust that a certain segment of the progressive caucus wouldn't throw certain issues under the bus to pass the plan, thereby making my health care much worse. Or the SC pulls a Hobby Lobby on us re the plan.
You also keep talking about lobbying. Here's the thing. That's going to happen regardless. The Sanders plan passes as it currently is, somehow. The instant it does the lobbying to gut it will start. That's true of any of them.
I don't view any plan that doesn't rip the cancer of private insurance out root and stem as sustainable in the long run. So yeah, like Medicare + insurance or what have you would be better than now, maybe for a generation or so, maybe. But then Aetna and Blue Shield and the like start funding candidates who want to "save costs" and fight any expansion in services and before long you're left with a public option that is wildly insufficient while everyone is back to private insurance to get real treatment.
Placing the blame for, for example, the U.K's slow adoption of better trans treatment on the fact that its a single payer system seems spurious at best. Its not like the UK in general is fantastic on the topic and its just having a hard time steering the ship.
Gotta be in business to have a lobby. Like yeah, I'm sure if MfA passes there'll be some health insurance lobbying to work against, but their days will be numbered if we can fight it off. If you leave them a niche to fill they won't stay in it.
It isn't just health insurance companies. It'll be conservatives wanting to only cover child abuse as transition care (conversion therapy). Or restricting abortion access or anything else they think violates their "religious freedom". Or trying to underfund the health system to kill it. Or trying to ban vaccine coverage. Or..you get the idea. Not having insurance companies around removes only part of the pressure.
I mean yeah, Single Payer isn't going to solve social conservatives. I never said it would, that's another fight. But what it solves is health insurance companies funding efforts to undermine care for their own profit.
If you can take away their ability to cut huge checks to politicians I think you're going to find a lot fewer politicians trying to "reform" your public health care system.
Any other plan is, to my mind, trying to reform capitalism but its a system that's incompatible with a long term goal of meaningful universal free at point of service health care.
Centrist technocrats do not inspire people. Nobody comes out in the street for a means-tested modest reduction in costs as advocated by a neoliberal think tank the President of whom is known for blistering hot takes like 'I don't understand why progressives are in favor of the French protests because fuel taxes fight climate change' and which last year donated $200k to the American Enterprise Institute, re-affirming that these people care more about inside baseball and making sure they're all still invited to one another's cocktail parties than anything to do with our class interests.
lmao, christ
Neera Tanden is terrible.
I'm not going to address your edit because I don't think it has a high likelihood of us continuing to be excellent to each other in this thread.
Regarding employees capturing the money, I think that's legitimate but also as an employee I don't particularly care. I have relatively good health coverage; my job is a lot of people with families and that's just a part of compensation they prioritize. Especially as a young, healthy person, if I could get something almost as good without having to rely on my employer, I don't care if they're saving the money. Every business that's not already scraping profit from this arrangement should be all-in for saving those costs and not having to dedicate huge resources to evaluating, enrolling, and managing employee health insurance coverage.
That seems the best way to approach the issue.
As someone in a UHC system that doesn't include dental: get dental in there.
The idea that dental is not necessary health care is so much bullshit, as anyone who's had dental issues can tell you.
Absolutely not!
My healthcare is part of my compensation package. Any employer provided "benefit" is part of my compensation.
I want to have the most charitable reading here, so please don't hear me as being confrontational but
are you saying that, as a young healthy person, you don't care if it makes things worse for families and the ill as long as you get something almost as good from the govt instead? That sounds like what you're saying!
Seriously, benefits are 100% part of your compensation package. Wages + benefits is what you are getting paid.
You can see this most explictly in union shops, where your union will literally negotiate for those benefits along with salary increases and with what form your compensation comes in being moved around during negotiation as your union angles for the best deal it can get. This is true even under a lot of UHC systems, where you get extra coverage on top of your government provided/paid-for coverage as a part of your compensation from your employer. (there's a big history to the healthcare system in the US and wage growth tied to this as well, with many unions having traded wage increases for benefits many decades ago but that's getting a bit off topic)
You can also see this fairly explicitly in contract work where you can get paid more in part because the company is not providing you with any benefits.
So, basically, what happens to my pay under the new UHC system when just the year before my union negotiated a new contract that gave on COL pay increases in return for maintaining benefits at their current level when suddenly the company is no longer providing those benefits?
Your life is still better, because even if you lose your union job, you don't have to worry about losing your health insurance.
If we lived in a perfect world I'd say that employers would have to cover whatever tax raise was necessary through a salary increase, and since they're no longer paying out for insurance it would probably be easily doable.
But this isn't a perfect world so
But what if i chose this shitty job because of the great benefits because I have a family and need that.
Just leave it I guess and try to find other work? Go to the job tree where jobs grow on jobbies?
I'm sure some will try to pocket the money they were spending on health insurance and quickly find out that it's a bit easier for their employees to walk. Though, the funding for this stuff should definitely hit those fuckers first, they aren't paying their fair share and I'd argue a ton of stuff that benefits them directly at the expense of the lower and middle classes, usually comes at the expense of those classes's health. So it would only be fair.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
That lack of worry doesn't really make up for the thousands in compensation that just poofed away.
Then you need your union to renegotiate the contracts.
It seems very wrong to oppose UHC on these grounds. It'll be annoying for a few years until your wages catch up or the union manages to renegotiate, but then you will have healthcare for life instead of until when the CEO decides to move the factory to China. You haven't lost *anything* - it just *feels* bad, like selling stock just before the peak and making a lot of money but not as much as you could have. And many more other people have gained life-saving health insurance. You won't be expected to throw money in those crowdfunding pots for underinsured people to have surgery anymore, nice huh?
If the benefits are better than the UHC plan, shouldn't you be expecting your employer to continue them? (Unless we are talking the pure Sanders plan which disallows private insurance, but the others don't)
But he has. The person in this hypothetical has literally lost substantial compensation from their employer.