4 ms·

I'd be fine with that, but I'm acutely aware living in the deep south that MANY people would not be happy with that. If we're talking about what's politically f

by lftl 8y ago

I'd be fine with that, but I'm acutely aware living in the deep south that MANY people would not be happy with that. If we're talking about what's politically feasible within the US, "universal" healthcare is only really an option at the state level, or maybe with some federal maneuvering, as a multi-state regional coordination. It's simply not going to be accepted anywhere in the near-future on a national level. For the parts of the country that are rabidly anti-universal healthcare, a more free market solution would be a nice consolation prize.

munk-a 8y ago
I disagree, I think they'd be extremely happy with it... as long as they were prevented from seeing the words "socialized" in any context around the program until they'd seen the benefits. A large portion of the country working full time already has their employer offered health plans supplemented by Medicaid anyways.
knuththetruth 8y ago
There’s already tons of people on Medicare and Medicaid in red states and there hasn’t been an armed insurrection. I think that working class people in these regions wouldn’t be adverse to Medicare being expanded to include them. I’m sure the Republican Party base of upper middle income and wealthy whites would be, but again, not so much everyone else there. It’s a matter of how and what constituencies you recruit and activate.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  > I think that working class people in these regions wouldn’t be adverse to the program being expanded to include them It’s so strange, the people who would most benefit from universal healthcare (and those that currently do, like Medicare beneficiaries) tend to be the strongest objectors to it, citing hard-to-understand ideological reasons.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > It’s so strange, the people who would most benefit from universal healthcare (and those that currently do, like Medicare beneficiaries) tend to be the strongest objectors to it, citing hard-to-understand ideological reasons. It's not so strange if you allow yourself to question the assumption that they'd benefit from it in the first place. Medicare is a great example. Patients can opt to receive their Medicare inpatient and outpatient coverage through a private plan instead of through the government-managed plan. Since this program was introduced, it's gained popularity rapidly, over a third of Medicare beneficiaries receive their benefits from private plans. Many private plans are the same price as Medicare or cheaper. From the data, the private plans beat government-managed plans on the three major metrics: medical outcomes, cost, and patient satisfaction. On the last one, the difference isn't even close: the worst of the major private plans (by patient satisfaction scores) still manages higher scores than Original Medicare does. People who haven't ever dealt with Medicare themselves directly (which includes most HN commenters) find this hard to understand, but it really isn't: dealing with Medicare is awful. I could give you my personal anecdotes, but they'd overfill the comment length on HN, and again, at the end of the day, the numbers speak for themselves. Medicare beneficiaries themselves are turning to private plans to replace their government-managed plans, so it's really not surprising if they're not the biggest advocates of expanding government-managed plans.
    - sidlls 8y ago
      The private plans you refer to are mainly either simply administrators (the government pays them to administer the benefits) or supplemental providers or both. And their existence and popularity has more to do with their sponsorship by insurance funded politicians than anything else. Dealing with these administrators isn't generally better or worse than dealing with the government directly. Exceptions exist, but that goes without saying.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > The private plans you refer to are mainly either simply administrators (the government pays them to administer the benefits) or supplemental providers or both No, they're much more than that. > And their existence and popularity has more to do with their sponsorship by insurance funded politicians than anything else. The programs are cheaper, provide better medical outcomes, and patients prefer them. That doesn't mean they're perfect, but you have to bend over pretty far backwards to say that they're inferior and only popular because of "insurance-funded politicians". > Dealing with these administrators isn't generally better or worse than dealing with the government directly. Exceptions exist, but that goes without saying. It is monumentally easier to deal with private insurers than to deal with an Original Medicare plan.

by lftl 8y ago

munk-a 8y ago

I disagree, I think they'd be extremely happy with it... as long as they were prevented from seeing the words "socialized" in any context around the program until they'd seen the benefits. A large portion of the country working full time already has their employer offered health plans supplemented by Medicaid anyways.

knuththetruth 8y ago

There’s already tons of people on Medicare and Medicaid in red states and there hasn’t been an armed insurrection. I think that working class people in these regions wouldn’t be adverse to Medicare being expanded to include them. I’m sure the Republican Party base of upper middle income and wealthy whites would be, but again, not so much everyone else there. It’s a matter of how and what constituencies you recruit and activate.

ryandrake 8y ago
> I think that working class people in these regions wouldn’t be adverse to the program being expanded to include them It’s so strange, the people who would most benefit from universal healthcare (and those that currently do, like Medicare beneficiaries) tend to be the strongest objectors to it, citing hard-to-understand ideological reasons.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > It’s so strange, the people who would most benefit from universal healthcare (and those that currently do, like Medicare beneficiaries) tend to be the strongest objectors to it, citing hard-to-understand ideological reasons. It's not so strange if you allow yourself to question the assumption that they'd benefit from it in the first place. Medicare is a great example. Patients can opt to receive their Medicare inpatient and outpatient coverage through a private plan instead of through the government-managed plan. Since this program was introduced, it's gained popularity rapidly, over a third of Medicare beneficiaries receive their benefits from private plans. Many private plans are the same price as Medicare or cheaper. From the data, the private plans beat government-managed plans on the three major metrics: medical outcomes, cost, and patient satisfaction. On the last one, the difference isn't even close: the worst of the major private plans (by patient satisfaction scores) still manages higher scores than Original Medicare does. People who haven't ever dealt with Medicare themselves directly (which includes most HN commenters) find this hard to understand, but it really isn't: dealing with Medicare is awful. I could give you my personal anecdotes, but they'd overfill the comment length on HN, and again, at the end of the day, the numbers speak for themselves. Medicare beneficiaries themselves are turning to private plans to replace their government-managed plans, so it's really not surprising if they're not the biggest advocates of expanding government-managed plans.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    The private plans you refer to are mainly either simply administrators (the government pays them to administer the benefits) or supplemental providers or both. And their existence and popularity has more to do with their sponsorship by insurance funded politicians than anything else. Dealing with these administrators isn't generally better or worse than dealing with the government directly. Exceptions exist, but that goes without saying.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > The private plans you refer to are mainly either simply administrators (the government pays them to administer the benefits) or supplemental providers or both No, they're much more than that. > And their existence and popularity has more to do with their sponsorship by insurance funded politicians than anything else. The programs are cheaper, provide better medical outcomes, and patients prefer them. That doesn't mean they're perfect, but you have to bend over pretty far backwards to say that they're inferior and only popular because of "insurance-funded politicians". > Dealing with these administrators isn't generally better or worse than dealing with the government directly. Exceptions exist, but that goes without saying. It is monumentally easier to deal with private insurers than to deal with an Original Medicare plan.