5 ms·

Yeah, but those are good questions he's asking. What are we doing with them? If it weren't for Lieberman, maybe we'd have been forced to figure that out.

cornholio 8y ago
No, that's not a good question, it's political pandering to special interests. It's wrong in it's superficial representation and it's done for very wrong reasons. A significant reduction in overhead would free significant funds into the hands of the consumers, who would employ them to improve their lives, generating economic growth and demand in other economic areas that would pick up the slack. Granted, it's not comfortable for the workers made redundant, hence the tendency to band together as a special interest group and put political pressure to keep things inefficient (that's all assuming single payer is indeed an efficiency improvement, an entirely separate discussion).
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  For the workers made redundant, a good answer to "what will happen to them" is some transitional support to help them re-train (whether through universities or vocational training) for other jobs, and maybe some assistance figuring out what new path to pick and how to get new jobs in the end. "What will happen to them" doesn't have to mean preserving a broken system, it just has to mean caring humanely for those affected.
  - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
    West Virginians vehemently disagree with you, it seems. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retrain...
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      According to that article, they disagree with this idea as applied to an industry (coal) that has long been a key part of West Virginia's cultural and political identity. Also according to that article, former coal miners are more open to retraining where other industries have jobs readily available and/or where coal has no credible chance of comeback in that area. None of that contradicts my suggestion as applied to the health insurance industry, which isn't really part of any cultural identity, and which would clearly not be about to rebound quickly in a single-payer world. Retraining could even be pretty quick if they retrained to other forms of insurance, especially life insurance (which still cares about individual health) but there are many other kinds too.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        What makes you think the other insurance markets can absorb anywhere near that number of workers, without collapsing wages and causing even more misery?
        jkaplowitz 8y ago
        I don't, but they can be among a menu of several destinations for them. Certainly not the only destinations.
- neltnerb 8y ago
  What I'm saying is that he's asking the questions rhetorically like this only because it was already known to be impossible to get to single payer because of Lieberman. If the facts on the ground were that it was actually possible to get single payer passed, I think those questions would have been easily answerable. It just wasn't tactically necessary to answer them in the context of what was achievable because of one horrendous (sorry Lieberman, but you really blew it) person. The statement was clearly entirely political, of course.
BigJono 8y ago
Destigmatise and expand welfare. That's exactly what it's there for, so you don't have swathes of people doing jack shit for 8 hours a day and helping no-one. If even 10% of those displaced by getting rid of bullshit jobs go on to do something productive, it's an enormous win for the economy.
- ovi256 8y ago
  Wellfare dependency bas negative, debilitating effects that can last generations once it take hold. Just like poverty.
  - lsc 8y ago
    On the face of it, the idea that it's somehow worse to be given food than to starve is kindof ridiculous. I mean, sure, it's easy to setup negative incentives if you setup a welfare system and you aren't paying attention, but that's really a different sort of issue... and one that can be solved by looking at those negative incentives. (the earned income tax credit is a good place to start if you want to look at real-world attempts to amelerate the negative incentives that come with "you lose all benefits if you earn more than X dollars" style need-based plans. I'm just bringing it up because it's a real-world attempt to solve that problem and because there is real-world research on it.) An imaginary way to deal with those negative incentives is Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" or even the 'basic income' people are on about. But point being, the negative incentives are a thing that you have to watch for with welfare programs... but they don't negate the good done by, you know, allowing poor children to access medical care, food and education.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      On the face of it, the idea that it's somehow worse to be given food than to starve is kindof ridiculous. The discussion here was between welfare and bullshit jobs, not welfare or starving.
      - AstralStorm 8y ago

cornholio 8y ago

No, that's not a good question, it's political pandering to special interests. It's wrong in it's superficial representation and it's done for very wrong reasons. A significant reduction in overhead would free significant funds into the hands of the consumers, who would employ them to improve their lives, generating economic growth and demand in other economic areas that would pick up the slack. Granted, it's not comfortable for the workers made redundant, hence the tendency to band together as a special interest group and put political pressure to keep things inefficient (that's all assuming single payer is indeed an efficiency improvement, an entirely separate discussion).

jkaplowitz 8y ago
For the workers made redundant, a good answer to "what will happen to them" is some transitional support to help them re-train (whether through universities or vocational training) for other jobs, and maybe some assistance figuring out what new path to pick and how to get new jobs in the end. "What will happen to them" doesn't have to mean preserving a broken system, it just has to mean caring humanely for those affected.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  West Virginians vehemently disagree with you, it seems. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retrain...
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    According to that article, they disagree with this idea as applied to an industry (coal) that has long been a key part of West Virginia's cultural and political identity. Also according to that article, former coal miners are more open to retraining where other industries have jobs readily available and/or where coal has no credible chance of comeback in that area. None of that contradicts my suggestion as applied to the health insurance industry, which isn't really part of any cultural identity, and which would clearly not be about to rebound quickly in a single-payer world. Retraining could even be pretty quick if they retrained to other forms of insurance, especially life insurance (which still cares about individual health) but there are many other kinds too.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      What makes you think the other insurance markets can absorb anywhere near that number of workers, without collapsing wages and causing even more misery?
      - jkaplowitz 8y ago
        I don't, but they can be among a menu of several destinations for them. Certainly not the only destinations.
neltnerb 8y ago
What I'm saying is that he's asking the questions rhetorically like this only because it was already known to be impossible to get to single payer because of Lieberman. If the facts on the ground were that it was actually possible to get single payer passed, I think those questions would have been easily answerable. It just wasn't tactically necessary to answer them in the context of what was achievable because of one horrendous (sorry Lieberman, but you really blew it) person. The statement was clearly entirely political, of course.

BigJono 8y ago

Destigmatise and expand welfare. That's exactly what it's there for, so you don't have swathes of people doing jack shit for 8 hours a day and helping no-one. If even 10% of those displaced by getting rid of bullshit jobs go on to do something productive, it's an enormous win for the economy.

ovi256 8y ago
Wellfare dependency bas negative, debilitating effects that can last generations once it take hold. Just like poverty.
- lsc 8y ago
  On the face of it, the idea that it's somehow worse to be given food than to starve is kindof ridiculous. I mean, sure, it's easy to setup negative incentives if you setup a welfare system and you aren't paying attention, but that's really a different sort of issue... and one that can be solved by looking at those negative incentives. (the earned income tax credit is a good place to start if you want to look at real-world attempts to amelerate the negative incentives that come with "you lose all benefits if you earn more than X dollars" style need-based plans. I'm just bringing it up because it's a real-world attempt to solve that problem and because there is real-world research on it.) An imaginary way to deal with those negative incentives is Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" or even the 'basic income' people are on about. But point being, the negative incentives are a thing that you have to watch for with welfare programs... but they don't negate the good done by, you know, allowing poor children to access medical care, food and education.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    On the face of it, the idea that it's somehow worse to be given food than to starve is kindof ridiculous. The discussion here was between welfare and bullshit jobs, not welfare or starving.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago