Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-08-2019, 04:48 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043

The stampede to, and then from, single payer


https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...primary-075034

In the end, the only politicians that demonstrated that they actually had principles were Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. The rest of them were all for single payer and then when that didn't work out for them began to beat a retreat. This is why the old farts are winning: because the young bucks have no principles and are only seeking to position themselves. And they weren't even good at it.
  #2  
Old 12-08-2019, 05:24 AM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 6,093
yeah, I think Biden and warren are gonna be the team after the convention ..... and single payers years away if ever .... cause it's going to take forever to figure out how to pay for it and a dem controlled senate to pass it into law .....
  #3  
Old 12-08-2019, 06:16 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Biden's a little impulsive so you really can't say he won't pick anyone, but Warren doesn't really make much sense for him. She's not ideologically aligned with him and also won't be a team player. She's also not ambitious enough to sell herself out so that she can get closer to the Presidency. Biden will either pick someone of similar mind and instincts to him, or a flunkie who will pretend to be all-in on Biden's agenda.
  #4  
Old 12-08-2019, 06:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
In the end, the only politicians that demonstrated that they actually had principles were Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
I'm not sure "lack of principles" is fair. But jumping on the M4A train without a plan shows an embarrassing lack of preparation and lack of simple sense, IMO. One candidate separated himself from the under-experienced (and therefore ill-prepared) clowns:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Biden

[the majority of Democrats know that single-payer health care] will take a long time, they know it costs a lot of money, and it’s causing some consternation for people.
  #5  
Old 12-08-2019, 07:13 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...primary-075034

In the end, the only politicians that demonstrated that they actually had principles were Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. The rest of them were all for single payer and then when that didn't work out for them began to beat a retreat. This is why the old farts are winning: because the young bucks have no principles and are only seeking to position themselves. And they weren't even good at it.
Can’t they just be lying?
  #6  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:47 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
yeah, I think Biden and warren are gonna be the team after the convention ..... and single payers years away if ever .... cause it's going to take forever to figure out how to pay for it and a dem controlled senate to pass it into law .....
Biden and Warren would make little sense. Warren is pretty powerful in the Senate and there’s a chance the Dems could be in the majority. Even in the minority, she’s still a fixture on cable news and Sunday shows. Plus, who wants to risk a special election in MA again?
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #7  
Old 12-09-2019, 01:08 AM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...primary-075034

In the end, the only politicians that demonstrated that they actually had principles were Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. The rest of them were all for single payer and then when that didn't work out for them began to beat a retreat. This is why the old farts are winning: because the young bucks have no principles and are only seeking to position themselves. And they weren't even good at it.
Has Buttigieg's position on single payer changed?
  #8  
Old 12-09-2019, 01:57 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Keep medical prices set by a secret AMA committee. Forget any universal coverage like single-payer or M4A with private supplements. No mandatory vaccinations or limits on pharmaceutical marketing, either. Any changes would only make America healthier, stronger, and more prosperous - NOT in Pres. Putin's interest. No, keep USA sick and addicted. See who benefits.
  #9  
Old 12-09-2019, 02:07 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 970
Eh, come back with this take in like two weeks after the Republican hack judges on the 5th circuit strike down Ocare because of the $0 individual mandate. Then we'll see where the Democratic healthcare fault lines are trending.
  #10  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:49 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Has Buttigieg's position on single payer changed?
I dont have cites but i believe it has. He was for M4A until he wasnt. But i welcome any correction.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 12-09-2019 at 08:49 AM.
  #11  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:31 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I dont have cites but i believe it has. He was for M4A until he wasnt. But i welcome any correction.
I don't think he's changed his position much since his campaign started. It's my impression that Warren fans are trying to hold him to some off the cuff statement during a press scrum well before announcing.
  #12  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:11 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,187
AFAIK, Buttigieg has always been pushing Medicare-for-all-who-want-it (M4AWWI), which is basically the public option. I don't think I'd count pre-campaign comments as changing his position. I think we've all rethought our positions at some point, and that's not the problem here.
  #13  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:26 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
HIs written policy has been the same, his rhetoric changed. He said very clearly in a tweet that he favored Medicare For All. And now he's attacking it. I don't actually think Buttigieg has a firm opinion one way or the other on health care beyond wanting to expand it. But I also think Liz Warren is the same in that regard. He support for M4A was strategic. She had plans for everything but for the longest time her health care plan was "I'm with Bernie". She'd support a public option, ACA reform, or M4A, whatever Congress sent her. Really I imagine all the candidates would. I doubt even Biden would veto M4A if it landed on his desk.
  #14  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,462
Steering the U.S.A. to single-payer health-care will be very complicated and difficult, and won't happen quickly. Sincere kudos to young left-wing idealists eager for change: I'd love to be proven wrong and see liberals take over and push their agenda. But in fact I think even smallish changes may lead to chaos, recession and perhaps a backlash against the D's in future elections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
... She'd support a public option, ACA reform, or M4A, whatever Congress sent her. Really I imagine all the candidates would. I doubt even Biden would veto M4A if it landed on his desk.
Yes. We'll get whatever fifty — or maybe even sixty — Senators can tolerate. The specific plans of the several candidates (on many of these economic matters) are almost irrelevant.
  #15  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:25 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Yeah, they are mainly for signalling and differentiation purposes, meant to be taken as seriously as Obama's opposition to the individual mandate. With the caveat that Presidents can lead on this issue if their party controls Congress, so if they are actually committed to their plan and it's a high priority they aren't just blowing smoke. I think that only Biden and Sanders actually fall into that category. Biden really does see ACA as Obama's ultimate achievement and wants to make the program work better. He'd sign M4A if it was on his desk, but I think in his first 100 days ACA reform will be something that he pushes along the lines he's laid out. Sanders of course sees M4A as his centerpiece. No way that's not his first priority upon taking office and while he'd settle for less, he'll be twisting as many arms as he can to get what he wants. The other candidates, I don't believe really care about health care more than other issues. Warren's more about economic populism outside the health care sphere, and Buttigieg and most of the minor candidates I doubt even care what health care reform looks like. They are for it and the details are for Congress to work out.
  #16  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:33 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Who benefits from suppressing US healthcare, leaving the nation sicker and weaker?
  #17  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:07 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Who benefits from suppressing US healthcare, leaving the nation sicker and weaker?
The U.S. has a large Investor Class, well diversified, scratching each others' backs, benefiting from big profits at Pharma, Healthcare, Insurance, and gaining advantage from employer-controlled health insurance — the threat of losing insurance helps keep salaries and wages in line. I don't think the Investor Class benefits directly from poor American health, but, generally lacking humanitarian values, they aren't harmed by
it either.
  #18  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:19 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
There's also simply that the public doesn't want to pay for it.
  #19  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:34 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Who benefits from suppressing US healthcare, leaving the nation sicker and weaker?
The rich and powerful. Health care is a 3.5 trillion dollar a year industry. The only way to truly reform health care and make it more humane and affordable is to enrage those business interests who benefit from our overpriced, brutal system.

The insurance industry, hospital industry, AMA, pharma, medical device industry, etc all oppose single payer. Not only do they oppose single payer, I think they all oppose a public option too. The reason is that single payer or a public option offer lower reimbursement rates, which means private insurance can't compete and medical providers get lower fees.

Realistically, this is probably the best case scenario for 2021 no matter who wins and assuming the democrats control the senate.

Token reforms to the ACA. Rather than maxing out your premiums at 10% of income, they'll reduce it to 8%. And they'll eliminate the 400% FPL limit for subsidies, and they'll peg subsidies to the gold plan rather than the silver plan. If we're lucky, maybe some reforms to balance billing.

Thats probably about it. The democrats won't even pass a public option since it would enrage multi trillion dollar industries. People will still go bankrupt, people will still lose their insurance, people will still pay 30%+ of their gross income in deductibles, copays and premiums. People will still be victimized by in-network and out of network confusion.

The only realistic path towards health reform is ballot initiatives on the state level. We have to do for health reform what we did for marijuana legalization. Pass state level ballot initiatives mandating universal health care and radical reform. After 5-10 years and a half dozen states passing it via ballot, then a few blue states will pass it via legislation. Not long after that, federal legislation may be realistic.

The democrats are pussies who are terrified of the rich and terrified of republican voters. They don't really respect or fear their own voters though, so even if 80% of democrats want health reform, we aren't getting it anytime soon via legislation. Democratic politicians ridicule and ignore their own voters, but they are terrified of making rich people and republicans mad. And there is no legit path to health reform that avoids making rich people and republicans mad (the ACA was a compromise to expand coverage without pissing off the rich or republicans). So the voters have to do it themselves via ballot initiative the same way they did with marijuana.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 12-11-2019 at 08:38 PM.
  #20  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:44 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
I'll supply another answer. Who benefits from a sicker, weaker America? Enemies of America. This property is commutative. As the investor class benefits, the investor class are enemies of America.
  #21  
Old 12-11-2019, 09:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
How does the investor class benefit from a sicker America?
  #22  
Old 12-11-2019, 11:56 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
How does the investor class benefit from a sicker America?
Wesley Clark answered that in the post before mine.
  #23  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:15 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
How does the investor class benefit from a sicker America?
They benefit from an overpriced health care system. If that system is brutal and evil and makes them sicker, so be it.

There is no path to genuine health reform that doesn't involve filling the rich and powerful with rage. Its just not possible. True health reform requires competition, transparency, price controls, government intervention, etc.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #24  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:04 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
There's also simply that the public doesn't want to pay for it.
The public pays for it now.
  #25  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
They benefit from an overpriced health care system. If that system is brutal and evil and makes them sicker, so be it.

There is no path to genuine health reform that doesn't involve filling the rich and powerful with rage. Its just not possible. True health reform requires competition, transparency, price controls, government intervention, etc.
It's not being pedantic to point out, that's not the same thing at all as benefiting from a sicker America.
  #26  
Old 12-12-2019, 05:49 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
The public pays for it now.
Paying via private funds for more brutal, more expensive health care makes us free, paying via taxes for cheaper, more humane health care makes us slaves.

Or so the media outlets funded by the health industry say.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #27  
Old 12-12-2019, 07:03 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...primary-075034

In the end, the only politicians that demonstrated that they actually had principles were Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. The rest of them were all for single payer and then when that didn't work out for them began to beat a retreat. This is why the old farts are winning: because the young bucks have no principles and are only seeking to position themselves. And they weren't even good at it.
What you call "no principles", I call "responsive to the electorate". I want politicians to be flexible when they hear us. The politicians with ossified positions aren't going to listen to us because they think they already know the answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The democrats are pussies who are terrified of the rich and terrified of republican voters. They don't really respect or fear their own voters though, so even if 80% of democrats want health reform, we aren't getting it anytime soon via legislation. Democratic politicians ridicule and ignore their own voters, but they are terrified of making rich people and republicans mad. And there is no legit path to health reform that avoids making rich people and republicans mad (the ACA was a compromise to expand coverage without pissing off the rich or republicans). So the voters have to do it themselves via ballot initiative the same way they did with marijuana.
Democratic politicians can only be as strong as their support from voters is. As 2016 showed, too many people who would vote Democrat if they bothered simply didn't bother. And 2018 showed what happens if some of them do. Reliable voters make reliable politicians.

Right now Republican politicians are terrified because they think the Trumpists will vote them out. Voters who seem to vote reliably.

(Note that your genitalia-based insult weakens your position.)
  #28  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:33 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Responsive to the electorate is good, but the electorate doesn't turn on a dime. If you're flip flopping around during a campaign, then you're just looking for a position rather than having a position that voters can trust you'll stick to when it counts.

If the Dem field was being responsive to the electorate they'd all be crowding around Joe Biden's plan rather than Bernie Sanders'. They chose poorly and now that ship has sailed.
  #29  
Old 12-12-2019, 10:51 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Democratic politicians can only be as strong as their support from voters is. As 2016 showed, too many people who would vote Democrat if they bothered simply didn't bother. And 2018 showed what happens if some of them do. Reliable voters make reliable politicians.

Right now Republican politicians are terrified because they think the Trumpists will vote them out. Voters who seem to vote reliably.

(Note that your genitalia-based insult weakens your position.)
Up until recently the democrats have been able to take their voters for granted. But luckily the democratic voters are starting to support using primaries as a tool to intimidate politicians. The democrats won big in 2006 and 2008, and for the most part didn't use the power given to them. When they did they passed tepid half measures designed to not offend the oligarchs. Democrats controlled something like 20-30 state houses and governorships in 2009 and 2010, did democrats really do anything with that power? Because the GOP did when they started winning (gun control rollbacks, voter suppression, anti-abortion laws, etc).

Democratic politicians are trying to walk a tightrope of pretending to support legislation that offends the rich, while not actually passing any of it into law. Maybe a few more election cycles of primaries from the left will force the democratic party to actually listen to their voters.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 12-12-2019 at 10:54 PM.
  #30  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:43 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
They need to listen to all voters. One of the parties needs to find a principled centrism. If Joe Biden has a successful Presidency, the Democrats might start seeing a pattern.
  #31  
Old 12-13-2019, 01:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
There's also simply that the public doesn't want to pay for it.
Is this a typo? Didn't you mean "the public has been brainwashed into not understanding that its costs will decrease." ?
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 05:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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