I don’t agree with this interpretation. Here’s what the article says:
Note that it says that employer-based insurance covered 55.7 percent of the population, not 55.7 percent of those who had health insurance coverage.
It also says “Of the subtypes of health insurance coverage” first. But whatever, it’s poorly worded at minimum and not worth squabbling over.
Agreed.
In real world usage, “lovely” leans heavily toward sarcasm territory. I may be able to recall an incident where it was used in a positive way, but most often I hear it uttered or written with at least a tinge of acidity.
I don’t quite think you can count Medicare/Medicaid as relevant for the discussion as to whether people are interested in a single-payer system; they’re *already *dealing with a single-payer system.
So if you say 55% have employer health care out of 67.5% with private insurance (i.e. not Medicare/Medicaid at 37.5%), you get 81.5% (55/67.5) of people who aren’t already on the government dime who are insured through their employers.
I’m not quite sure how (or why) we got on this sub-topic, but I wanted to see what numbers are presented by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
According to the KFF, here are the 2017 numbers:
Employer Insurance: 156,199,800
Non-Group: 20,525,500
Medicaid: 65,152,400
Medicare: 42,802,800
Other Public: 4,588,200
Uninsured: 27,753,700
Total: 317,022,500
So if we take into account only those in the first two groups, then almost 89% of those covered by private insurance are covered by their employer’s plan. And employer plans cover about 49% of the total population.
If your argument against a single payer system is that people are satisfied with their private insurance, you should consider that satisfaction with the US single payer system - Medicare - is even higher. So Medicare should count.
Good point yourself.
I said that the general public would benefit at the expense of select wealthy interests, but things are more complicated than that. Employer health-care covered people might see their oxen gored with these changes.
Consider- I am one of these people, I get my health insurance “for free” though my job. I still have some out-of-pocket health costs however.
In the switch to M4A, IF (big if) I lose my employer insurance in exchange for government Medicare, am I paying more or less? If my taxes go up by $3000 a year, is that more or less than my out of pocket health expenditures under the current system? Well, it depends based on the individual. Some people are going to be upset.
OTOH, my gf gets upset when I hand cash to homeless people. She will even send me links about “homeless dude kills stranger over inexplicable dispute.” Well, with M4A all those people have to do is show up at a hospital or clinic and they can get that nasty cough or whatever checked out. If I am a little worse off financially, the Very worst off are potentially way, way better off, and so not only is one of the most difficult objectives in politics resolved but I get my gf off my back.
Given the wealth disparity, there’s not really any reason that the middle class or lower should be paying more for healthcare than they are, even if costs remained the same. There is no reason we wouldn’t have it set up where we tax the rich to cover those who are currently uncovered. (Though the argument is that costs would drop, meaning savings, since the government would be more interested in giving you money back than the private sector, who would want to keep it for profits.)
There is an argument for not giving money to the homeless, if you want to direct what they do with the money–e.g., you want them spending it on food, not booze/drugs. But the existence of some violent homeless people is not one of those reasons. That’s like using a black thief as a reason to be racist towards black people.
I keep saying that one of the main forms of bigotry is extrapolating from a few individuals to the whole group.
Why, bless your heart, don’t read 'em! That’s just mental hygiene. You must have read quite a few, so you know what I got. Why stand at the machine, put in your quarter and press the button that says “Pissed Off”?
See my name, scroll down and let it be. You’re better off, I’m no worse, so…groovy.
Your employer is now paying $X on your behalf to an insurer; that’s $X he would no longer be paying in a single-payer system and which, “in principle”, he should pass on to you as a salary hike.
But that’s just the beginning of problems from a major switch-over. Removing power and profits from insurance companies would be a huge political obstacle.
Obamacare with subsidies, mandatory enrollment, and a public-payer option may have been the best practicable starting point. Too bad that McConnell et al had no virtuous interest in the American public, and couldn’t think of anything beyond partisan malice.
I understand that it’s sarcastic, but the point is that both “lovely” and “Ms.” are used in this case, with awareness or not, to use her gender to belittle her.
I think it’s fair to say we would never see something like “the handsome Kevin Cramer” to offhandedly describe the senator-elect from North Dakota, for example. Words like “lovely,” “sweet,” “darling,” etc are almost exclusively used, sincerely or sarcastically, by men to describe women. And when it’s done to describe someone in a professional capacity, it almost always contains the subtext “you are taken less seriously than men.”
And, to choose to use the honorific “Ms.” sarcastically instead of simply her name, or “senator-elect” rings pretty clearly as a call to put her in her place as a woman, particularly following the “lovely”.
I don’t suggest that Shodan sat rubbing his paws together devising this dastardly misogynist sentence, but they’re his words nonetheless.
I’m not arguing against it, I’m saying why it’s a hard sell to the majority of people. You don’t have to sell it to people already on it, so that’s why I’m saying they’re not relevant.
In other words, that very large percentage of people NOT on Medicare/Medicaid who currently have employer-provided health care are the ones that need convincing to vote for candidates who want single payer.
And by and large, they’re satisfied. Maybe it’s that kind of satisfaction like having a job for a long time, and knowing you’re underpaid, but you don’t leave anyway, because you know it, inside and out, and you get paid. I don’t know.
But I do know that for most people who are currently covered, there needs to be a very clear layout of how it’s going to do several things for them better than the current plan, or it’s going to be difficult:
- They don’t get worse care than they currently get under their employer’s plan.
- It isn’t going to cost them more, especially if the care is less.
- They still get to choose their providers/keep their current ones.
That’s what there’s a fair lack of clarity about; most of the rhetoric concerns the uninsured/underinsured and not the vast majority of taxpayers who are covered through employer insurance. They’re the ones who need to know what’s in it for them.
It’s hard to convince some people just because personal experiences are going to be so different. If you never or rarely need medical attention then your employee health insurance almost seems free but have a health scare that requires some MRIs and suddenly that $4k deductible isn’t just theoretical anymore.
“Difficult” is one way of putting it.
Essentially, doctors, nurses, technicians, labs, hospital and clinic workers, are all going to take a 25-40% pay cut, but are going to deliver the same level and amount of health care. That is a difficult thing to layout.
This one might be a little easier. If we more than double federal income tax, but nobody pays premiums, then it might fly.
This will be an especially tough sell, particularly after “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”.
The uninsured and underinsured are now going to be paid for by the federal taxpayer, instead of mostly by increased premiums on the insured. Which, again, you might be able to sell, providing the underinsured and uninsured don’t increase their utilization of the health care system, which they are bound to do.
As I have mentioned before, the idea under Obamacare was that people would now have insurance, and thus this would reduce emergency room visits and replace them with visits to their PHP. Which didn’t happen - both visits to emergency rooms and visits to PHPs went up.
Regards,
Shodan
How is “they get to keep their current provider” remotely a sensible concern in a switch to M4A? No, you probably wouldn’t. If you trying some German style hybrid maybe but if you want a funded government universal healthcare insurance program, you can’t let a bunch of people opt out.
[quote=“Try2B_Comprehensive, post:168, topic:825514”]
Consider- I am one of these people, I get my health insurance “for free” though my job. I still have some out-of-pocket health costs however.
You don’t have insurance for free from your employer. You have insurance as part of your benefits package. Is your PTO and 401k also for free?
Your employer is paying your premiums on your behalf, and sounds like they are paying 100%, good deal for you.
Now, since you work for such a good employer that provides you this benefit, should things change and so they no longer have to pay for your insurance, do you think that your employer will pocket the savings, or that they will pass them to you?
If they pass them to you, then you are coming out ahead on your paycheck. If they don’t pass them on to you, then you would be blaming UHC for a decision that your employer chose to make.
So, if pay goes up by $3000 a year, and your taxes go up by $2000 a year, and in the process you get to eliminate those out of pocket healthcare costs, as well as extend the benefits that you enjoy on to your fellow citizen, would you still be adverse?
Are you saying that the ability for people to keep their current providers (i.e. doctors) isn’t a major concern for people? Or that people are just going to suck that up because M4A is so awesome?
That’s going to piss a LOT of people off- many have built up decades long relationships with their doctors (primary care & specialists both), and will not take kindly to being told that they don’t get to choose or continue to go to their current one (the same thing, ultimately).
That can happen right now, **bump **- any time you change jobs and the employer has a different insurer, or if they change you from or to an HMO, you may have to change providers or get hosed at out-of-network rates. If every provider were in the same system, that would NOT be a risk.
I don’t know if it is sensible or not, but as bump says it is a concern for many people. It’s not a concern I share - I like my PHP, but I tend to think of doctors as pretty interchangeable. As long as they are board-certified, I’m good. And I have some chronic health issues, although none of them are very serious.
Although I know people who want and trust a specific doctor, especially a surgeon, and would be upset if that doctor cut back on the number of patients he/she saw, or referred those patients to a nurse practitioner/PA, or left practice and went to work in academia or whatever. Or even if a clinic brought in a bunch of less-experienced doctors who were willing to work for less. All of which are likely, or at least possible, outcomes of a major salary cut for health care providers.
Or a related concern, that patients could no longer take specific medications because they cost too much, and therefore had to take other, cheaper meds, or OTC instead. As in “your arthritis drug costs too much - take aspirin instead” or “we don’t prescribe statin drugs for patients your age, because it isn’t clear that they reduce mortality overall”.
As I have mentioned before, Americans want a health care system that
[ul][li]gives the best care available[/li][li]is available to everyone, and[/li][li]at a reasonable cost.[/ul]Pick any two, but not all three.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan