Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:05 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...rather than rely on anecdote, can you quantify what a "lengthy delay" would be, and compare that delay to someone in the United States who has no insurance and doesn't qualify for any other assistance?
We're talking elections here. The majority of Americans have some form of health care. I bet a very large percentage of voters have health insurance. Covering the currently uninsured people is a slightly different conversation than how you're going to change people's current coverage.
  #52  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:17 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
They don’t complain, at least not in the way you mean. They are NDP voters, true believers that their healthcare system is so superior, like everything else in the country they have adopted. I am the one side-eyeing it all as I hear about their difficulties time after time.

Meanwhile I have been consuming lots of long-deferred medical care in the past two years after a couple decades of being either uninsured or underinsured. Blue Cross/Blue Shield has taken great care of me.
I've heard every Canadian political stripe's complaints, living here and all. I'm sure they said something about not spending the money correctly.

I too can enjoy a bunch of delayed dental work and eye exams with no waiting time thanks to my wife and my employment health benefits. Private insurance just isn't allowed to pay for my overdue colonoscopy.

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-02-2019 at 02:20 AM.
  #53  
Old 08-02-2019, 03:26 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s irrelevant to say that it’s better to have coverage with delays than to have none at all. That is obviously true, but middle class Americans who already have health coverage will not stand for having even slightly worse coverage even if it is for the greater good. Is that morally bankrupt of them? Maybe so. But this is politics, and we have to go with what the voters will actually accept.
...going back to my original question: can you quantify how much " slightly worse coverage" actually is, quantify how and why Canadian coverage is objectively "slightly worse" than coverage in America, and why would universal care mean "slightly worse"coverage and not "slightly better" coverage?

Quote:
The Elizabeth Warrens of the world obviously think we should just wag our fingers and hector them to be better, but this is incredibly stupid politics and will not get anything good accomplished for anyone.
Its not stupid at all. She's simply telling it like it is. Her message has resonated with many dems and that is reflected by her polling.

From that survey:

"The 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Survey of 11 nations finds that adults in the United States are far more likely than those in other countries to go without needed care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. U.S. adults are also more likely to report having poor health and emotional distress."

https://international.commonwealthfund.org/data/2016/

It sounds like America actually has more than "slightly worse coverage" than Canada does, wouldn't you agree? In fact it sounds worse than "slightly worse."

Quote:
Notice that there are plenty of countries with universal healthcare on that list. Let’s maybe emulate them, if it is politically feasible. But definitely not Canada. Not until they get their act together.
LOL. Your cite said 74% of Canadians said they recieved excellent or very good healthcare from their regular doctor. It sounds like they do have their act together.

But as you know: I'm from New Zealand. So if you would prefer to follow the model we have here then you can if you like.

Quote:
They don’t complain, at least not in the way you mean. They are NDP voters, true believers that their healthcare system is so superior, like everything else in the country they have adopted. I am the one side-eyeing it all as I hear about their difficulties time after time.
But it is superior isn't it?

Quote:
Meanwhile I have been consuming lots of long-deferred medical care in the past two years after a couple decades of being either uninsured or underinsured. Blue Cross/Blue Shield has taken great care of me.
I don't have to worry about insurance. I've spent days in hospital while they tried to fix me. I've been using a CPAP machine every night that was given to me two years ago by the local hospital. I've had monthly visits to the cardiologist the last two years. I didn't pay a cent out of pocket for anything except perscriptions ($5.00 per item) and carparking. Do you really want competing anecdotes? Because I don't think you would find a single person from countries with universal healthcare that would swap what they have for what you have in the United States.

But all of that is irrelevant of course.

You originally claimed that "no premiums, no deductibles, no copays even for prescriptions, any doctor, etc" would be unworkable fiscally. But countries with universal healthcare have all of those things. They are fiscally workable and we can do it cheaper than what the US is doing now.
  #54  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:33 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
BB, let me say at the outset that I am very skeptical that Bernie’s plan would work in the American context. And there are significant differences between what he is pushing for and what many other countries do. But I have debated that in GD threads before, and while I may do so again in the future, I’m not going to do it with you here. This is Elections and so this is not the place for that kind of policy debate. (Go search for my past posts on this topic and even respond to them if you’d like: I’m sure I’m still subscribed to those threads.)

What this is a place for, is a debate over the politics of it and how a Democrat can be most likely to beat Trump in the election that will be held in November 2020. So let’s proceed with that part of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Its not stupid at all. She’s simply telling it like it is. Her message has resonated with many dems and that is reflected by her polling.

There are a couple people in TNS who keep hitting me with this argument as well. It strikes me as a non sequitur, but all of you seem to think it is a valid argument for some reason.

Yes: Warren resonates with many Democrats. She has a legitimate chance to win the nomination. That is why I spend so much energy opposing her. If I didn’t think she had a good chance of winning the nomination, I would generally ignore her except for maybe laughing at her schoolmarmish wonkiness now and then.

But what makes her so dangerous is her potential to be a George McGovern type, who scratches all the spots that makes liberal Democrats feel good without having broad appeal to the middle of the electorate when general election season comes. (Which is not theoretical: DSeid and I have posted many cites about her weakness with swing voters in the primary thread.) Therefore, citing her increasing popularity with Democratic primary voters is not a refutation or rebuttal of my complaint about her. And her dogmatic insistence on abolishing private insurance, despite the unequivocal poll numbers that show this is an unpopular idea, is probably her most dangerous position—because it deals with something very important to voters’ lives, unlike decriminalizing illegal immigration or that sort of thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
From that survey:

“The 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Survey of 11 nations finds that adults in the United States are far more likely than those in other countries to go without needed care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. U.S. adults are also more likely to report having poor health and emotional distress."

https://international.commonwealthfund.org/data/2016/

It sounds like America actually has more than "slightly worse coverage" than Canada does, wouldn't you agree? In fact it sounds worse than "slightly worse."

Okay. I really thought I had made this distinction clear in my comments about “the greater good.” I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell this out. But I will try.

First, let me fully admit at the outset that what I am about to say may well indicate that the median American voter is just not as good a person as the median voter in most other industrialized democracies. Certainly not when it comes to the issue of universal healthcare. But we have to try to win this election on the playing field we have, not the one other countries have or the one we wish we had.

So this putative median voter is not so great. She is a 60-year-old married white lady in the Milwaukee suburbs who voted for Bush at least once if not twice (for sure in 2004 even after Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, etc.) and she voted for Trump last time, or maybe just stayed home because she didn’t like either candidate. But she did vote for Obama twice, although her husband voted for Romney in 2012 after voting for Obama in 2008.

And she is definitely gettable for Democrats in 2020, but only if we don’t make her too nervous about the changes we are planning to make. Like me, she has a good Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan through her husband’s employer, and it has taken care of her and her family with no real problems.

She sees reporting on the news about people who still don’t have health insurance, and feels a little bit sorry for them. Just a little, like she feels for the charity cases her pastor talks about at church. She would like the government to provide at least a basic health plan for these people, although maybe not as good as the “Cadillac plan” her husband’s union negotiated for. After all, that was a tough negotiation—and why should her tax dollars pay for something just as good for people who don’t even belong to her husband’s union? That’s not fair, she thinks. She and her family have worked hard to get a little bit higher on the ladder than most people, and johnny-come-latelies shouldn’t just get to catch all the way up without working as hard (as far as she is concerned, regardless of how hard they actually work).

Or maybe she doesn’t even care at all if uninsured people get coverage, but she is tired of Trump’s uncouthness—and if a Democrat comes in and gives working poor people a basic health plan, she won’t kick up a fuss about it if that gets Trump off her TV screen.

Speaking of that TV screen: now she sees talking heads debating on TV the same way you and I are. The more moderate backers of candidates like Biden and Bullock say they want to leave everyone alone who has an employer based plan, and just offer a public option for those who don’t have good insurance. But the ones who take your position and back Warren treat it holistically, just like you are. They say that Americans collectively will be much better off with a universal single payer benefit. If there are slightly longer waiting times for some who had the best private plans before those were outlawed, that’s a pretty small sacrifice for the greater good of covering millions of Americans who now have nothing.

You just lost her. At least if Warren or Bernie is the nominee. She may not say it out loud because she knows it sounds bad, but in the privacy of the voting booth, she is going to vote to keep every scintilla of what she has. Even if that means sacrificing millions of other people to medical bankruptcy. Even if it will condemn many decent, hard-working people to an early death (though she will try not to think about that part too much). And even if it means suffering through Trump on TV for another four years.

As I say, maybe that makes her a really shitty person. But she’s not as shitty as the people who are definitely going to vote for Trump no matter what, and what really matters is that we can get her vote if we promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, not to mess with what she already has (even if in some ways we might end up breaking that promise later—shhh).

That’s what is at stake. We can still make sure everyone has some kind of health coverage, even if it is a patchwork system and not as efficient. Even if it preserves inequality in healthcare. It will still end medical bankruptcy and save lives. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good!

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-02-2019 at 06:34 AM.
  #55  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:16 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BB, let me say at the outset that I am very skeptical that Bernie’s plan would work in the American context. And there are significant differences between what he is pushing for and what many other countries do. But I have debated that in GD threads before, and while I may do so again in the future, I’m not going to do it with you here. This is Elections and so this is not the place for that kind of policy debate. (Go search for my past posts on this topic and even respond to them if you’d like: I’m sure I’m still subscribed to those threads.)
...I'm merely addressing the words that you said here. Are you now arguing that the words that you said were off topic?

Quote:
There are a couple people in TNS who keep hitting me with this argument as well. It strikes me as a non sequitur, but all of you seem to think it is a valid argument for some reason.
TNS? The Next Step? Travailleurs Non Salariés? Transaction Network Services? The Naturist Society? Trust and Safety? Transparent Network Substrate? Team No Sleep?

Quote:
Yes: Warren resonates with many Democrats. She has a legitimate chance to win the nomination. That is why I spend so much energy opposing her. If I didn’t think she had a good chance of winning the nomination, I would generally ignore her except for maybe laughing at her schoolmarmish wonkiness now and then.

But what makes her so dangerous is her potential to be a George McGovern type, who scratches all the spots that makes liberal Democrats feel good without having broad appeal to the middle of the electorate when general election season comes. (Which is not theoretical: DSeid and I have posted many cites about her weakness with swing voters in the primary thread.)
LOL.

You live in a democracy. People are going to have different opinions on the best way forward for that democracy. There is nothing dangerous about Elizabeth Warren and there is nothing dangerous about the policy's that she promotes. What is dangerous is white supremacy. Anti-black and anti-muslim hate. Those are the things that are really dangerous. Those are the thngs you should be fighting against and starting threads about.

Quote:
Therefore, citing her increasing popularity with Democratic primary voters is not a refutation or rebuttal of my complaint about her.
Citing her increasing popularity was a direct refutation of the sentence I quoted.

Quote:
And her dogmatic insistence on abolishing private insurance, despite the unequivocal poll numbers that show this is an unpopular idea, is probably her most dangerous position—because it deals with something very important to voters’ lives, unlike decriminalizing illegal immigration or that sort of thing.
It isn't a "dangerous position." Its a position you disgree with: thats all.

Quote:
Okay. I really thought I had made this distinction clear in my comments about “the greater good.” I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell this out. But I will try.

First, let me fully admit at the outset that what I am about to say may well indicate that the median American voter is just not as good a person as the median voter in most other industrialized democracies. Certainly not when it comes to the issue of universal healthcare. But we have to try to win this election on the playing field we have, not the one other countries have or the one we wish we had.

So this putative median voter is not so great. She is a 60-year-old married white lady in the Milwaukee suburbs who voted for Bush at least once if not twice (for sure in 2004 even after Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, etc.) and she voted for Trump last time, or maybe just stayed home because she didn’t like either candidate. But she did vote for Obama twice, although her husband voted for Romney in 2012 after voting for Obama in 2008.

And she is definitely gettable for Democrats in 2020, but only if we don’t make her too nervous about the changes we are planning to make. Like me, she has a good Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan through her husband’s employer, and it has taken care of her and her family with no real problems.

She sees reporting on the news about people who still don’t have health insurance, and feels a little bit sorry for them. Just a little, like she feels for the charity cases her pastor talks about at church. She would like the government to provide at least a basic health plan for these people, although maybe not as good as the “Cadillac plan” her husband’s union negotiated for. After all, that was a tough negotiation—and why should her tax dollars pay for something just as good for people who don’t even belong to her husband’s union? That’s not fair, she thinks. She and her family have worked hard to get a little bit higher on the ladder than most people, and johnny-come-latelies shouldn’t just get to catch all the way up without working as hard (as far as she is concerned, regardless of how hard they actually work).

Or maybe she doesn’t even care at all if uninsured people get coverage, but she is tired of Trump’s uncouthness—and if a Democrat comes in and gives working poor people a basic health plan, she won’t kick up a fuss about it if that gets Trump off her TV screen.

Speaking of that TV screen: now she sees talking heads debating on TV the same way you and I are. The more moderate backers of candidates like Biden and Bullock say they want to leave everyone alone who has an employer based plan, and just offer a public option for those who don’t have good insurance. But the ones who take your position and back Warren treat it holistically, just like you are. They say that Americans collectively will be much better off with a universal single payer benefit. If there are slightly longer waiting times for some who had the best private plans before those were outlawed, that’s a pretty small sacrifice for the greater good of covering millions of Americans who now have nothing.

You just lost her. At least if Warren or Bernie is the nominee. She may not say it out loud because she knows it sounds bad, but in the privacy of the voting booth, she is going to vote to keep every scintilla of what she has. Even if that means sacrificing millions of other people to medical bankruptcy. Even if it will condemn many decent, hard-working people to an early death (though she will try not to think about that part too much). And even if it means suffering through Trump on TV for another four years.

As I say, maybe that makes her a really shitty person. But she’s not as shitty as the people who are definitely going to vote for Trump no matter what, and what really matters is that we can get her vote if we promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, not to mess with what she already has (even if in some ways we might end up breaking that promise later—shhh).

That’s what is at stake. We can still make sure everyone has some kind of health coverage, even if it is a patchwork system and not as efficient. Even if it preserves inequality in healthcare. It will still end medical bankruptcy and save lives. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good!
You spent a lot of words talking about a single voter. I understood your argument perfectly the first time. Your argument doesn't make Medicare for All a dangerous policy though. If you oppose it then you better get better at arguing against it (than you have in this thread) because it isn't going to go away. If the only reason to oppose Medicare for All is because you might lose a single voter then that isn't a good reason to oppose it at all.
  #56  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:26 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
A single voter? Jesus fucking Christ. Srsly?

She is a stand-in, an avatar, for a group of voters who have outsized power in 2020: suburban married churchgoing white women over 45 but not yet retired, in Wisconsin, the most pivotal of all battleground states—but she also stands in for similar women in other crucial Rust Belt battlegrounds like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Did you really not get that, or are you trying to whoosh me? FFS

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-02-2019 at 07:28 AM.
  #57  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:37 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Now imagine another putitive median voter. She is a 57 year old divorcee who finds Trump's orange hue sexy and desperately wants to be the next Mrs. Trump. She collects cat figurines and voted for Reagan but never again, because he's ineligible to be president for a 3rd term and he's dead. She also loves MFA. Like, loves it. She literally writes love letters to Bernie Sanders every night telling him about her ideal future, married to Trump, huge collection of cat figurines, covered by MFA.

She's a stand-in, an avater, for a group of voters who have outsized power in 2020. Shouldn't we appeal to her?



See, I can make up stories too. Do you have any actual evidence that this person exists in large numbers, and that they feel the way you think they do about fairness in universal coverage?
  #58  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:01 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
One thing that Medicare-for-All (or even "MFA-light") advocates could do to get more Americans to buy into their reforms is to point out that one of the biggest problems with private insurance is in dealing with private insurance companies once you file a major claim. I guarantee that in many cases, probably a majority, whenever there is a major claim, the insurance companies and providers are going to start a negotiations process in which they will claim you owe more than you think. It's very possible that "covered" patients will get stuck with a tab for "out-of-network" services and "exclusions" and other fine print stipulations. This is one of the absolute worst things about our system: Americans don't really know for sure what their insurance company will cover and they don't know what their provider will charge them for. There is hardly any transparency in the process. A medicare-for-all scheme could solve this problem. They need to bring anecdotes and have ads in which these people who get screwed because they thought they were covered are featured prominently. That's the way to sell it: people who have insurance need to understand they might not be insured after all. And in many cases, they're not. They're getting ripped off.

Having said that, I think that Medicare-for-all proponents really need to understand that the period of transition is going to be long and hard. One very real problem that none of the universal care advocates addressed in the debate was the potential for a surge in health system users. If more people assume they're covered, more people will use the health system. That's good in terms of growing the pool, but it also creates more demand for services and nothing can increase the supply of doctors and healthcare professionals, all of whom typically require years of highly expensive education in medical schools. I doubt it would happen, but let's say for the sake of argument, Democrats win a landslide election and then use that mandate to just take a wrecking ball to the system and implement immediate M4A, I think it would quickly turn into an unmitigated disaster for that reason among many others. That's why they should be selling this idea as a transformation that can take place in stages, with the idea that if political pressure somehow stymies that transition, Americans will still end up with better care than they have now. That's why I think a more enhanced version of Obamacare is the way to go forward.

Last edited by asahi; 08-02-2019 at 08:02 AM.
  #59  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
It’s not just a narrow segment of swing voters, either. From New York Magazine, no one’s idea of a right wing rag:


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...insurance.html
Quote:
Early in the first Democratic presidential debate, all the candidates were asked who would abolish private health insurance. Only two raised their hands: Bill de Blasio, who is not going to be the party’s nominee, and Elizabeth Warren, who might be. Should that possibility come to pass, her frank answer could prove deeply harmful and perhaps deadly.
As a slogan and general concept, Medicare for All polls well. But public opinion is highly prone to change if altered with new information, and one piece of information that can alienate a large chunk of potential supporters is the concept of replacing all private health insurance:
Below that colon is a graphic showing that MFA without further explanation polls at 56% favoring, 42% opposing. +14, not bad. But when the pollsters added “Would you favor or oppose a MFA plan if you heard it would do the following”, and offered various options, “eliminate private health insurance companies” is -21, 37% to 58%. Not good. And “lead to delays in some people getting certain medical tests and treatments” is -44, 26% to 70%. Very bad!
  #60  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:09 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A single voter? Jesus fucking Christ. Srsly? She is a stand-in, an avatar, for a group of voters who have outsized power in 2020: suburban married churchgoing white women over 45 but not yet retired, in Wisconsin, the most pivotal of all battleground states (but she also stands in for similar women in other crucial Rust Belt battlegrounds like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Did you really not get that, or are you trying to whoosh me? FFS
...no, I get what you meant. The suburban married churchgoing white women over 45 but not yet retired, in Wisconsin, who looks at Donald "SEND THEM HOME" Trump and looks at Elizabeth Warren and votes for Trump was always going to vote for Trump anyway. They would vote for Trump over Biden, or Inslee, or Harris. She may not say it out loud because she knows it sounds bad, but in the privacy of the voting booth, she is going to vote to keep every scintilla of what she has.

Or maybe she wouldn't do that. Maybe she would vote for Warren, because she had a change of heart and it was the best thing to do for the country. Or maybe she has a brother who has had a run of bad luck, who has no health insurance, no income, and is struggling to afford insulim every month.

I don't think we can afford to moderate what we do based on what we think might happen if we do or don't do something. How many times have you heard "If we impeach Trump wins?" How about "If we don't impeach Trump wins?" "If Biden wins the nomination Trump will win again" compared too "If Biden loses the nomination Trump will win again?"

Everybody has a "hot take" on what will win the next election. "Medicare for All is dangerous" is simply yet another "hot take."

Warren and Sanders think that their policies are the best way forward for America. I live in a country with universal health care that saved my life, it saved my brothers life, it saved my mothers life and it kept my dad alive to a very good old age. Thousands of dollars of medical care and we paid zero out of pocket. There is absolutely no reason at all why a nation with the resources of the United States of America couldn't do exactly the same thing.

If you don't want Warren and Sanders to win then you are absolutely right to oppose them. But if you are going to oppose them then don't do it off the back of misrepresenting how universal healthcare works in the rest of the world. Thats all I ask and I think thats entirely fair. I think that Warren and Sanders positions on insurance companies is an abolutely fair thing to push back on them about. But the elections aren't going to be held tomorrow. Let the debates play out.
  #61  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:55 AM
Anny Middon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So this putative median voter is not so great. She is a 60-year-old married white lady in the Milwaukee suburbs who voted for Bush at least once if not twice (for sure in 2004 even after Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, etc.) and she voted for Trump last time, or maybe just stayed home because she didn’t like either candidate. But she did vote for Obama twice, although her husband voted for Romney in 2012 after voting for Obama in 2008.

And she is definitely gettable for Democrats in 2020, but only if we don’t make her too nervous about the changes we are planning to make. Like me, she has a good Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan through her husband’s employer, and it has taken care of her and her family with no real problems.

She sees reporting on the news about people who still don’t have health insurance, and feels a little bit sorry for them. Just a little, like she feels for the charity cases her pastor talks about at church. She would like the government to provide at least a basic health plan for these people, although maybe not as good as the “Cadillac plan” her husband’s union negotiated for. After all, that was a tough negotiation—and why should her tax dollars pay for something just as good for people who don’t even belong to her husband’s union? That’s not fair, she thinks. She and her family have worked hard to get a little bit higher on the ladder than most people, and johnny-come-latelies shouldn’t just get to catch all the way up without working as hard (as far as she is concerned, regardless of how hard they actually work).
What happens if we make your sample voter (who is, I point out, only 5 years from Medicare -- and if you don't think that affects her thinking, you don't know many older people) aware that other people who don't even belong to her husband's union are paying in part for that Cadillac plan? Would she find that unfair?

Most people are resistant to understanding such things, and -- let's face it -- most don't understand how the tax brackets work. So perhaps the easiest way to drive this home is to make health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored programs taxable.

The typical employee-plus-one total premiums in Wisconsin run to a tad over $13,000 annually (I'll give a link if you like, but I'm lazy today). So let's say the Cadillac plan is running $15,000. If she and her husband are in the 22% tax bracket, their taxes on this benefit would be $3,300.

If she and her husband have to pay this amount, would she still be so proud of her situation?
  #62  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:17 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
As I say, maybe that makes her a really shitty person. But she’s not as shitty as the people who are definitely going to vote for Trump no matter what, and what really matters is that we can get her vote if we promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, not to mess with what she already has (even if in some ways we might end up breaking that promise later—shhh).
I think I despise that idea, and the post you wrapped around it; and I think she’d despise that idea, as well as the post you wrapped around it, and won’t trust you when next you come around trying to win her over with a cross-your-heart promise you already figure isn’t the truth - shhh - but you don’t figure you can sell her with truth, you figure you have to tell her that, uh, if she likes her plan, she can keep it? You recommend that, knowing it ain’t true, as the approach?
  #63  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:28 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,442
There are structural problems with the economics of our healthcare system that need to be addressed and I’ve never seen any proposal that does anything but talk about who’s going to pay the bill.

The principles of supply and demand economy are deeply distorted in our current healthcare system, because in most cases the bills aren’t being paid by the people receiving the goods and services. Imagine a restaurant that charged you one “all you can eat” price, but that paid their chefs by the piece for everything you ate. And those chefs got to advertise and market their food. Those chefs would have a business model that revolved around getting you to eat as much as possible. Now I’m not saying the majority of medical care isn’t necessary. But when I had cataract surgery in both eyes, they insisted on doing it as two surgeries and I had a total of 17 assorted pre-op and post-op visits in addition to the surgery cost. I owed co-pays on all. And I had to pay some anesthesiologist twice, for something that was like, as they put it “a glass of wine to relax you”. I could have suggested a cheaper way to accomplish this.

But there is a thriving industry that wants you put you in a doctor’s office as much as possible and get you to take as many medications as possible. I used to have a Cadillac plan, and I got a lot of physical therapy and psychotherapy when I was on that plan. But when I dropped back to a cheaper plan and had to pay $60 a session for this, I decided I didn’t need it all that much.

The high deductible insurance everyone loves to hate provides what insurance should, protection against a devastating event. The insurance model isn’t designed for ordinary care, but ordinary care has become cost prohibitive. And the ordinary care part of the policy is the part the consumer perceives that they need. They don’t think too much about the catastrophic care part because most of them never use it.

Some employers had add-on policies that covered workers from “first dollar” to the amount of their deductible. Then some employers just started offering the just add-on policies as insurance. Cheap insurance that appeared to pay for everything. And the customers loved it. Unless something happened and they actually needed it. Frankly, in a lot of ways insurance is like buying a car you probably will never drive. People might really like a car that sits in their garage all day because they’ve never once had to drive it. It may seem presumptive to tell them that they are wrong and their car sucks.
But they can be wrong.

It seems to me that all the healthcare plans revolve around who’s going to pick up the tab for our fundamentally broken system. But I’m afraid unless the underlying system is reformed and reined in they are all doomed to fail.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 08-02-2019 at 10:32 AM.
  #64  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:28 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I think I despise that idea, and the post you wrapped around it; and I think she’d despise that idea, as well as the post you wrapped around it, and won’t trust you when next you come around trying to win her over with a cross-your-heart promise you already figure isn’t the truth - shhh - but you don’t figure you can sell her with truth, you figure you have to tell her that, uh, if she likes her plan, she can keep it? You recommend that, knowing it ain’t true, as the approach?

Worked for Obama (Obamacare is now popular, but it would never have gotten passed at all without that fib).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
What happens if we make your sample voter (who is, I point out, only 5 years from Medicare -- and if you don't think that affects her thinking, you don't know many older people) aware that other people who don't even belong to her husband's union are paying in part for that Cadillac plan? Would she find that unfair?

Most people are resistant to understanding such things, and -- let's face it -- most don't understand how the tax brackets work. So perhaps the easiest way to drive this home is to make health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored programs taxable.

The typical employee-plus-one total premiums in Wisconsin run to a tad over $13,000 annually (I'll give a link if you like, but I'm lazy today). So let's say the Cadillac plan is running $15,000. If she and her husband are in the 22% tax bracket, their taxes on this benefit would be $3,300.

If she and her husband have to pay this amount, would she still be so proud of her situation?

So…you are proposing that Warren promise to raise her taxes first to make the Cadillac plan a kind of toxic asset she will be glad to get rid of? Frying pans and fires come to mind.

Fair point though that it might be better if she is like 54 instead of 60.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-02-2019 at 10:29 AM.
  #65  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:34 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Ann Hedonia, I agree with your take. I have for years advocated that we give everyone a much cheaper HDHP/HSP combo as a kind of birthright. If their employer gives them supplemental insurance beyond that, OK. But as practical and efficient as my idea would be, it seems to have no purchase in the body politic, so I don’t mention it that often anymore.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-02-2019 at 10:35 AM.
  #66  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:50 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ann Hedonia, I agree with your take. I have for years advocated that we give everyone a much cheaper HDHP/HSP combo as a kind of birthright. If their employer gives them supplemental insurance beyond that, OK. But as practical and efficient as my idea would be, it seems to have no purchase in the body politic, so I don’t mention it that often anymore.
Yeah, suggesting someone might not need a doctor immediately for every little thing is kind of the third rail, isn’t it, and it seems beyond the pale to suggest a little watchful waiting for minor issues and problems that are known to sometimes be self-resolving. But that is the result of a lifetime of conditioning by the medical industry.

My young nephew ( who was living with me at the time )went to the ER on News Year Day because he felt nauseous and his heart was racing. I tried to tell him he was experiencing his first hangover and he just needed to rest and wait it out, but he wouldn’t hear it.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 08-02-2019 at 10:51 AM.
  #67  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:58 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Yeah, when I floated it here, the umbrage was flying fast and furious. You would have thought I was suggesting the poor eat their children instead of wasting taxpayer money on food stamps.
  #68  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
No premiums - Canada - check

No deductibles - Canada - check

No copays (for doctors / hospitals) - Canada - check

Any doctor (if you mean no networks?) - Canada - check.

Doesn't seem unworkable here. And yes, there isn't much left to supplement in primary health care.
They have a special tax which is called a Premium, so you cant say No premiums.

Deductibles and copays? Well, yes Canada has them- sorta:

https://www.aimseducation.edu/blog/u...differences/No prescription drug coverage.

Canadian universal care doesn’t cover everything, however. Though the CHA dictates that medically-necessary services are covered at no cost, there is no distinct definition as to what “medically necessary” means specifically, leaving each province and territory to decide.

In Canada, regular visits to primary care doctors, hospitals, and diagnostic services are covered by Provincial Health Insurance. However, there is some cost sharing when it comes to other services, like ambulances, prescription/over-the-counter medications, dental care, vision care, and long-term care facilities. This does pose a bit of an issue for people who have large out-of-pocket expenses, but the government does provide a tax credit to ease this burden.

Private Health Insurance to Fill In the Gaps
Another somewhat contentious issue is private health insurance. Just like in the United States, private health insurance may be offered by employers. Canadians are also free to purchase private coverage to help defray from the cost of care which is not covered by the universal services (For instance, prescription drug plans help people pay for medications they need to take on a regular basis). Just like in the US, most of these private insurance companies are for-profit.



Canada also does not cover prescription drugs.
  #69  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Health care in Canada is managed by the provinces according to federal standards. It is only fair to say federal regulations don't mandate prescription drug coverage, except during hospitalization where it is indeed required. There's a variety in provincial drug plans and your quote does not seem to recognize that.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...-programs.html

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-02-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #70  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:59 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
People care more about their relative wealth than their absolute wealth, which is why they get so upset about income inequality: if they are doing a little better and the rich are doing a lot better, they feel like they are doing worse.
This is true and the reason why the arguments that taxing the rich will send them to the right side of the Laffer Curve are so fricking stupid. The hedge-funder in Greenwich would be happier making 20 million and his next door neighbor making 15 then he would with both of them making 30.
  #71  
Old 08-02-2019, 03:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Health care in Canada is managed by the provinces according to federal standards. It is only fair to say federal regulations don't mandate prescription drug coverage, except during hospitalization where it is indeed required. There's a variety in provincial drug plans and your quote does not seem to recognize that.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...-programs.html
Yes, some provinces have drug plans. But Canada does not.
  #72  
Old 08-02-2019, 03:19 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
All the provinces have drug plans, they just aren't all universal coverage. Afaik, they all cover low income and seniors. And as mentioned, drugs in hospitals are covered universally, which I think is an important point.

But I think I generally agree with your point that Canada's system isn't utterly free for all medical necessities.
  #73  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
All the provinces have drug plans, they just aren't all universal coverage. Afaik, they all cover low income and seniors. And as mentioned, drugs in hospitals are covered universally, which I think is an important point.

But I think I generally agree with your point that Canada's system isn't utterly free for all medical necessities.
Sure, and in fact Medicare has a sorta drug plan, too.
  #74  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:50 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
You know what I don't hear so much of, lately? News stories about some poor dumb schmuck getting lawyered out of their health care by an insurance company. Got tired of that in a big damn hurry! People who thought they were covered going broke because they won't let a loved one just die.

And some did, didn't they? Bound do happen, the cold equations don't allow anything else, some died.

Its the efficiency, stupid! Around the world, well off countries do well, even poor as shit countries do better than they would have! The best balance between risk and protection is the widest possible grouping, Très duh, mais non? Even Obamacare, that mutant mechanism, half steam engine, half computer, does better than what we had! Who knows what we could achieve just by improving it. We're the Americans, we figure out how to do stuff. If not us, who? If not now, when?
  #75  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:11 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Other countries with single payer systems still have private insurance for those who want to pay extra for extra coverage, right?
Canada permits the purchase of private insurance for goods and services not covered by the provincial plan(s), but not supplemental coverage for more or better service for items that are covered by the public plan.

I think one can get supplemental coverage for, say, a private room in a hospital. One can also purchase vision care or dental insurance. Or drug coverage.

But the basic Canadian plan is a cradle-to-grave plan, covering everyone, and providing the same level of coverage for everyone.

It seems to work pretty well.
  #76  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:55 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And as mentioned, drugs in hospitals are covered universally, which I think is an important point.
In the USA, one is overcharged for drugs one normally takes at home when they are provided by a hospital.
  #77  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
That doesn't sound very cool of them.

And for the record, in Ontario at least, it includes medications that you're on that have nothing to do with your hospitalization. When you're in there, it's covered.
  #78  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:05 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
in the privacy of the voting booth, she is going to vote to keep every scintilla of what she has. Even if that means sacrificing millions of other people to medical bankruptcy. Even if it will condemn many decent, hard-working people to an early death (though she will try not to think about that part too much). And even if it means suffering through Trump on TV for another four years.
. . . so she’s a conservative then? Won’t vote for any change that requires her life to change, unless it means more free stuff for her personally?

Doesn’t sound like there’s a chance in hell she’ll be voting for any Dem ever. Certainly not when we face real economic, social, or environmental crisis.

Candidates who honestly and sincerely appeal to the voter who insists on keeping every scintilla of what they have are not candidates that can do anything positive for the nation.
  #79  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:34 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
My mother and sister report that dental, vision, hearing aids, and prescriptions are not covered. Plus there is private supplemental insurance, as noted upthread. So Bernie is in fact planning to offer something that does not exist there, and probably not anywhere. It’s important to remember that he is really more interested in sticking it to insurance companies than in just giving people health coverage. And as long as Elizabeth Warren does not deviate with her own plan, that is what she is stuck with as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
This is true and the reason why the arguments that taxing the rich will send them to the right side of the Laffer Curve are so fricking stupid. The hedge-funder in Greenwich would be happier making 20 million and his next door neighbor making 15 then he would with both of them making 30.

Good point. Yet another reason why the Laffer curve is completely stupid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
. . . so she’s a conservative then? Won’t vote for any change that requires her life to change, unless it means more free stuff for her personally?

Doesn’t sound like there’s a chance in hell she’ll be voting for any Dem ever. Certainly not when we face real economic, social, or environmental crisis.

Candidates who honestly and sincerely appeal to the voter who insists on keeping every scintilla of what they have are not candidates that can do anything positive for the nation.

I said right up front that the American voters who are decisive in national elections are not great people. But we have to curry favor with them to win even if it is nauseating. Would you prefer to just be pure and lose? How many people get healthcare that way?

And if you think swing voters are not as shitty and selfish as that, look again at the poll numbers I linked. Only 26% would support MFA if it would “lead to delays in some people getting certain medical tests and treatments”. 26% is actually a large number of people. Many tens of millions, and I’m sure you are one of them. But it’s not enough to keep from giving completely shellacked by the Republicans in the election—in which case you end up without half a loaf, or even a crumb of a loaf.

Fortunately, candidates don’t have to honestly and sincerely appeal to such voters. Doing so dishonestly and insincerely is fine as long as it gets the job done.
  #80  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:44 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Doing so dishonestly and insincerely is fine as long as it gets the job done.
Seriously, why do you keep saying the quiet part out loud?
  #81  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:46 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If their union negotiated hard for this benefit or a “Cadillac health plan” was something that attracted them to take their white-collar job...
I think the flaw in the OP lies in the also-flawed phrase "Cadillac health plan". Obviously it signifies the most expensive health plan. But a Cadillac is (or was) a Veblen-type good, one whose consumption rises with a price increase because of its exclusivity. So long as people get to go to a decent doctor, most of them aren't going to complain that they aren't going to the most expensive doctor in the state. Nor will they fret about the status of going to a less expensive doctor.

I suppose you could argue that relative wealth is a factor here. I tend to think not, because here again it's a convoluted task to value the wealth factor of an insurance plan. Like clearly a $0 deductible is obviously better than a $10,000 deductible, but the valuation depends on many contingencies like whether you consume that much care in a year, and what your premiums are.

If there is a hazard here it will be the same as any other social program. "Look what X ethnic group is getting for free, while I'm paying for mine!" (or - "I paid my own X for years and now they're giving it away for free"). That's a legit issue, but if we navigated it for benefits like welfare and social security, we ought to be able to solve it for healthcare.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 08-03-2019 at 06:47 AM.
  #82  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:49 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Seriously, why do you keep saying the quiet part out loud?

LOL, I hear what you are saying but none of us represents an official Democratic Party organ or anything. And a candidate can easily (and definitely should) disavow this kind of talk as necessary. But there are too many Democratic primary voters here (and everywhere) who don’t seem to understand the importance of having a nominee who appeals to these sorts of swing voters, so I can’t in good conscience not talk about these strategic points.
  #83  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:56 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I think the flaw in the OP lies in the also-flawed phrase "Cadillac health plan". Obviously it signifies the most expensive health plan. But a Cadillac is (or was) a Veblen-type good, one whose consumption rises with a price increase because of its exclusivity. So long as people get to go to a decent doctor, most of them aren't going to complain that they aren't going to the most expensive doctor in the state. Nor will they fret about the status of going to a less expensive doctor.

I suppose you could argue that relative wealth is a factor here. I tend to think not, because here again it's a convoluted task to value the wealth factor of an insurance plan. Like clearly a $0 deductible is obviously better than a $10,000 deductible, but the valuation depends on many contingencies like whether you consume that much care in a year, and what your premiums are.

If there is a hazard here it will be the same as any other social program. "Look what X ethnic group is getting for free, while I'm paying for mine!" (or - "I paid my own X for years and now they're giving it away for free"). That's a legit issue, but if we navigated it for benefits like welfare and social security, we ought to be able to solve it for healthcare.

Social Security was not means tested for this reason (by any logical and ethical standard it ought to be). And the Great Society triggered a backlash that lasted for decades. But my point is that I think enough people are OK with providing some sort of basic healthcare plan to people who don’t have anything. They just don’t want everyone, including them, to get the same thing. That is true whether it means going down a little bit so that many others go up (the worst case scenario politically) or even if everyone goes up but they are no longer superior to others.

Why would it be so awful to just create a public option, instead of putting everyone on the same plan? I know it’s not as efficient, but it’s such massively better politics.
  #84  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:07 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
I will add an anecdote that does not necessarily reflect terribly well on me, but is illustrative of the psychology I am talking about. At the place where I got my IVAPS machine, the woman in charge of billing pulled up my insurance and exclaimed “Wow, you have such a low deductible! I wish mine was this low.” I have to admit, I took a lot of satisfaction out of that. And I never really thought “oh it’s too bad she doesn’t have the same thing: I wish everyone did”. Instead, I felt that little frisson of satisfaction you get when everyone is envious that you have a nicer car or TV or whatever then they do. It’s not pretty, but it’s human nature and we have to take it into account.

ETA: And rereading what I just wrote, I can’t help but have a feeling of pride, like “hey, awesome: now all these people on the board know I have great insurance”. It’s ridiculous, it’s petty, it’s awful really, but it’s psychologically very powerful.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-03-2019 at 07:10 AM.
  #85  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:26 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I can’t help but have a feeling of pride, like “hey, awesome: now all these people on the board know I have great insurance”. It’s ridiculous, it’s petty, it’s awful really, but it’s psychologically very powerful.
My own anecdote is that it doesn't make me feel anything to know you have good insurance. Mine is good enough, I don't envy your unnecessary MRI overconsumption.

My mother might feel resentment that you can smoke as many cigarettes as you want, knowing you can easily afford the lung transplant. To me that seems more like a neurotic edge case than a wellspring of politically exploitable resentment, but again it's dueling opinions about what other people think.

I mean... the big healthcare-related resentment Obamacare faced was "you can't make me get no goldarn insurance! I'll get sick if I feel like it!" This makes me think healthcare envy is a lot less potent than you seem to think.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 08-03-2019 at 08:28 AM.
  #86  
Old 08-03-2019, 10:44 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,442
I don’t think that the positional aspect is as big of a deal as some of you do. I really don’t know or care what my neighbor’s health care plan covers. And if he claims it covers daily massages or something, I’m just going to think he’s lying.

But there are a still a lot of economic irrationalities going on. Take my former “Cadillac” plan. (I don’t really like that term, it colors the debate by implying a massive difference in QUALITY of care that doesn’t really exist. I prefer “car that always works and takes you wherever you want to go plan”)

I picked it up for the one year because I knew I had two upcoming surgeries. But this plan made absolutely no rational sense for anyone, because the premimum was over $150 a month more than the plan with the $2000 deductible. So really, all I was doing was paying the deductible over the course of a year, whether I used it or not. This plan made absolutely no rational sense.

But when I was deciding whether to get therapy, it made a difference. When I was deciding whether to see a doctor now or wait a week, it made a difference.

When that “first dollar” ordinary care was, in effect, prepaid - I was determined to use it whether I really needed it or not. I was making a cost benefit decision but the cost was not based on the value of the service I was receiving. It was an artificially low copay that could be described as practically nothing. So I didn’t have to perceive much benefit in order to decide to consume the service.

But when I knew the visit meant I’d be writing a $200 check at some point, I made the cost -benefit decisions of a rational consumer, and often decided to use the money for something that would give me a greater benefit.

But the medical establishment has conditioned us to believe that it is wrong to make rational cost benefit decisions with regards to our health. We are taught that it is wrong to even consider cost when it comes to the matter of our health and that we are risking our lives, livelihood and futures if we don’t have immediate access the most advanced and effective treatment for even minor ailments, cost be damned.
So don’t try to treat that rash with an OTC cream for a week or so first, head to the dermatologist for a $350 consult and a tube of $200 prescription cream NOW! Doing anything else is like playing Russian Roulette with your HEALTH! Money should not be a factor (and, of course ,someone else should pay the bill.)

I had an actual turning point with regards to this attitude. I have told this story before on this forum. Several years ago, my right ear canal was chronically itchy. My doctor ruled out disease and infection and gave me a prescription for an ear drop. This was not a dangerous issue. It was not at risk of spreading or becoming more serious. It was not a symptom of something larger. It was strictly a comfort issue.

I filled that prescription dutifully for months, paying my $15 copay every time. Then there was some sort of insurance glitch and in the process of straightening it out, I discovered my insurer was paying around $200 for each .5 oz bottle of ear drops. I looked at the eardrop bottle. The active ingredients were hydrocortisone and acetic acid (white vinegar).

I refused to fill the prescription anymore. I told my doctor I was going to buy a dropper bottle, a bottle of white vinegar and a tube of hydrocortisone cream and mix up about 10 grand worth of ear drops in my kitchen. She was fine with it.

So I became a rebel of sorts. Every time I filled a prescription I insisted on knowing the real cost, not just my copay. And sometimes I wouldn’t fill it. And since then I have tried, as much as possible within our fucked-up health care system, to make rational cost benefit decisions with regards to my own health.
It’s an exercise in futility but I do it anyway.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 08-03-2019 at 10:48 AM.
  #87  
Old 08-03-2019, 10:49 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Fortunately, candidates don’t have to honestly and sincerely appeal to such voters. Doing so dishonestly and insincerely is fine as long as it gets the job done.
So your suggestion is we all pick the candidate who lies about standing for the “I’ve got mine” folks, but who, when they get elected, says “gotcha ya!” and turns their back on them?

How do you suggest we differentiate between the people who are lying about being selfish and short-sighted and those who truly are? And how is it that the selfish and short-sighted swing voters are going to be fooled while the rest of us aren’t?
  #88  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:43 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Social Security was not means tested for this reason (by any logical and ethical standard it ought to be). ...
Why would it be so awful to just create a public option, instead of putting everyone on the same plan? I know it’s not as efficient, but it’s such massively better politics.
It is to some extent, in that if your income is high enough, SocSec becomes taxable.

No, you have to make sure everyone is in the pool. Now, if everyone pays, but some want more and will pay more, that's fine. But everyone has to pay in.
  #89  
Old 08-03-2019, 04:19 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
So your suggestion is we all pick the candidate who lies about standing for the “I’ve got mine” folks, but who, when they get elected, says “gotcha ya!” and turns their back on them?

How do you suggest we differentiate between the people who are lying about being selfish and short-sighted and those who truly are? And how is it that the selfish and short-sighted swing voters are going to be fooled while the rest of us aren’t?

Really? Did you actually think Obama was sincere in 2004 with the “there are no red states or blue states” schtick? I didn’t, but I liked it because I knew the swing voter rubes would eat it up with a spoon.
  #90  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:01 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Really? Did you actually think Obama was sincere in 2004 with the “there are no red states or blue states” schtick?
Of course electoral strategy must hinge on either/or calculations, but did you ever see him treat red and blue states different in actual governing decisions? I saw nothing remotely comparable to, say, Donald Trump flattering states who support him and menacing those who defy him.
Quote:
I didn’t, but I liked it because I knew the swing voter rubes would eat it up with a spoon.
Nice.
  #91  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:46 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I'm surprised you're able to reply, given the mass death and destruction that I assume happens when you have such a socialist medical system. Congrats on surviving in that, I presume, desolate wasteland.



Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been on the bubble at the Soylent Centre, but I've been renewed for another five years. Yay me!
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #92  
Old 08-04-2019, 03:15 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They have a special tax which is called a Premium, so you cant say No premiums
Let me get all "Bill Clinton-y": it depends what the meaning of "premium" is.



In the two provinces that charge "premiums" (Ontario and BC), they are means-tested. Only individuals who have incomes over a certain amount are required to pay the "premiums". And, everyone gets access to the same health care, whether they pay "premiums" or not. Heck, even if you're required to pay "premiums" and you fail to do so, you get the exact same coverage.

Contrast that with the private insurers in the States: if someone applies for coverage to a private insurer and says "I don't have the money to pay the premiums but you're required by law to give me coverage," would the insurance company give them coverage?

Or, if you're someone who has a private plan, and then you just stop paying premiums, will the insurance company keep you enrolled?

The government health plans in Canada use the language of insurance for reasons I don't understand, but it's not really an insurance plan. It's a public service, just like roads and public schools and police, and the "premiums" are just a fancy name for an income-progressive tax.


Quote:
Deductibles and copays? Well, yes Canada has them ...
Again, need to be clear in terminology when comparing different systems. Quite true: Canada's system does not cover every health care need. The big ones that aren't covered are drugs, dental and vision, as you mentioned.

But if something isn't part of the public health system, it's not a deductible or a co-pay, if by that you mean that you have to pay it as part of your coverage. You're paying for something that isn't covered by your plan. That's not a deductible or a co-pay, since it's not tied to your insurance plan.

If a tree falls on your house and your insurance adjuster says "Tree damage isn't covered by your policy, you'll have to pay it all yourself," that's not a deductible or a co-pay on your insurance. That's something that's not covered by the plan.

The Canadian system was implemented to cover doctor's treatments and hospital treatment. That's the public Medicare, and deductibles and co-pays for those covered services are prohibited by the Canada Health Act.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #93  
Old 08-04-2019, 03:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Of course electoral strategy must hinge on either/or calculations, but did you ever see him treat red and blue states different in actual governing decisions? I saw nothing remotely comparable to, say, Donald Trump flattering states who support him and menacing those who defy him.

Nice.

No, although I hope the next Democratic president is less ecumenical. I don’t think they should blatantly go out of their way to stick it to red states, but implementing policies that will tend to benefit blue states more sounds good to me. I am tired of red states being by and large net drains on the Treasury while complaining their taxes are too high.
  #94  
Old 08-04-2019, 04:18 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No, although I hope the next Democratic president is less ecumenical.
Presidents should be ecumenical for the straightforward practical reason that they have, at best, very limited control over the legislative agenda, while the legislature has a great deal of control over the President's governing agenda.

Quote:
I don’t think they should blatantly go out of their way to stick it to red states, but implementing policies that will tend to benefit blue states more sounds good to me. I am tired of red states being by and large net drains on the Treasury while complaining their taxes are too high.
I agree with the transactional principles outlined here. But this also depends on an airtight supermajority. i.e. if you say "fuck Kansas", don't expect Kansas to help out on your SCOTUS pick.

Also the more troubling aspect that many red states are only red because Republican governers and secretaries of state are colluding to steal votes via voter suppression, oppressive felony-voter laws, gerrymanderying, strategic prison locations.

It seems very unprincipled to fuck over your allies just because they live in states that suppress their votes.
  #95  
Old 08-04-2019, 04:22 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
I think we are mainly talking about black voters in the Deep South, right? I have advocated for years that they move to more hospitable states, and that maybe left-leaning billionaires could help them do so. This suggestion was roundly mocked, but to me it is not just political but moral: a less extreme version of helping Jews get out of the Third Reich in the 1930s.

ETA: Strategic prison locations?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-04-2019 at 04:24 PM.
  #96  
Old 08-04-2019, 04:34 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I think we are mainly talking about black voters in the Deep South, right? I have advocated for years that they move to more hospitable states, and that maybe left-leaning billionaires could help them do so. This suggestion was roundly mocked, but to me it is not just political but moral: a less extreme version of helping Jews get out of the Third Reich in the 1930s.
There are lots of reasons to oppose this, but the biggest one is that this assumes red states are always going to be adversaries. If that's true, then we don't need to drain them of political opposition. In fact we should be doing the opposite.

Quote:
ETA: Strategic prison locations?
I didn't know a shorter way to fit this cleanly into a subordinate clause, but red states are trying to get as many prisons and prisoners as they can, because incarcerated prisoners count for political representation, but they can't vote. For representatives, that translates to more power with less exposure to election risk. It's like the 3/5 compromise but worse.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 08-04-2019 at 04:35 PM.
  #97  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Gotcha.
  #98  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:17 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
There are lots of reasons to oppose this, but the biggest one is that this assumes red states are always going to be adversaries. If that's true, then we don't need to drain them of political opposition. In fact we should be doing the opposite.


I didn't know a shorter way to fit this cleanly into a subordinate clause, but red states are trying to get as many prisons and prisoners as they can, because incarcerated prisoners count for political representation, but they can't vote. For representatives, that translates to more power with less exposure to election risk. It's like the 3/5 compromise but worse.
Yeah, red states can't incarcerate their minority populations faster than those groups can grow as a proportion of the electorate. Three southern red states are on the verge of proving that.
  #99  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:46 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Wait, “doing the opposite” as in encouraging black folks to move into what for them could be an oppressive hellhole?
  #100  
Old 08-06-2019, 03:41 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Yeah, red states can't incarcerate their minority populations faster than those groups can grow as a proportion of the electorate.
Not their own populations, but from other states. They attract private prisons who are expected to bid on interstate incarceration contracts. Then they pass/strengthen laws against inmates voting, while passing laws requiring that those inmates count the same as residents for representation purposes. It is quite a bold scam.

Pew trust article if you want to learn more about that.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017