Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 226

Thread: Looking for SLN Pundits on the Democratic Debate

  1. #121
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    I will never believe that Bernie Sanders would ever put working class people in a position where they're worse off. He said as much at the debates, and I believe him.
    But isn't socialism designed to share the suffering over a larger footprint?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #122
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    14,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    But isn't socialism designed to share the suffering over a larger footprint?
    Depends on what you call suffering. If you're talking about the suffering of one of my latest interviewees, who has diabetes and her HbA1c numbers were really going down due to her medication, but when I asked her why they skyrocketed at a certain point lately she said it was because she couldn't afford her medication, and now she's suffering from some of the horrible consequences of diabetes.

    As Bernie has said, if you add up all the money people spend on their insurance, deductibles (which are climbing higher and higher), and copays, and then look at how much taxes will be raised to cover Medicare for All, I believe for most individuals it would be at least a wash. And if you consider it "suffering" to be in a tax bracket that can easily afford to have your taxes raised a small amount to cover some of the benefits all the other developed countries in the world seem to enjoy, well, I'll take that kind of suffering over the suffering of my interviewee any day.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  3. #123
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    12,889
    Young people with Type 1 diabetes are dying because they cannot afford their insulin. I pay taxes and will gladly pay more to stop that.

  4. #124
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    14,636
    From this article in the NYTimes today, talking about one huge reason our system is bloated:

    As a matter of ethics and equality, this should be O.K.; sticking with a system that is the source of so much death, debt and financial ruin just because you like your doctor or your insurance company or your medical-billing job is not really a defensible position.

    On the other hand, in America, “I’ve got mine and I don’t want to lose it” is always pretty good politics.

    The jobs argument goes like this: There’s a lot of fat in the American health care industry, and any effort to transform it into a simpler system in which everyone is covered would necessarily eliminate layers of bureaucracy and likely reduce overhead costs. Every year Americans collectively pay about $500 billion in administrative costs for health care — that is, for things like billing and insurance overhead, not for actual medical care.

    These costs are significantly higher than in most other wealthy countries. One study on health care data from 1999 showed that each American paid about $1,059 per year just in overhead costs for health care; in Canada, the per capita cost was $307. Those figures are likely much higher today.

    The thrust of this article is that there is an argument that streamlining the healthcare system will lose jobs. This is why we are fighting to save jobs for people who work in coal mines, people who own gas stations, and all other industries that are going to be as relevant as the typewriter very soon. Is that a good enough reason to hold on to a ridiculously inefficient system?
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  5. #125
    Yppej
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    I agree with you. However, it's quite likely that the union, when negotiating for their excellent healthplan, gave up other benefits or higher wages in order to get the healthplan they have. SO does HR for a large hotel company and the unions at his hotels have all negotiated what would to the rest of us be absurd healthplans ($5 copay for ER visits for example). But to get those healthplans they have given up a lot of other things that they might otherwise have gotten instead.
    Exactly. And union contracts are for a few years, and it would take a few years to phase in Medicare for All. When the contract is up for renewal go for higher pay or more vacation time or something else instead.

  6. #126
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Yppej View Post
    Exactly. And union contracts are for a few years, and it would take a few years to phase in Medicare for All. When the contract is up for renewal go for higher pay or more vacation time or something else instead.
    The issue for the union, though, is not that they gave up one raise one time. It’s that they have given up something(s) every three or four years at the contract renewal to keep the healthcare plan. It’s almost a certainty that at each renewal negotiation management’s starting ‘ask’ includes revisions to the health plan to reduce its cost.

  7. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    Some proposals include a punitive “Cadillac tax” to reduce the value of more generous plans and make a government option more attractive. Others include eliminating the deductibility of employer paid premiums for the same reason. Single payer eliminates the differences by simple brute force.

    Given the broad spectrum of plans right now, however, it’s difficult to believe a single payer system wouldn’t have disparate impacts on working people. Making a blanket statement to the contrary seems disingenuous to me.

  8. #128
    Yppej
    Guest
    There is already a Cadillac plan tax on the books scheduled to go into effect in 2022.

  9. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Yppej View Post
    There is already a Cadillac plan tax on the books scheduled to go into effect in 2022.
    I thought it was repealed last summer.

  10. #130
    Yppej
    Guest
    You are correct LDAHL.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •