5 ms·

>I don't understand why this isn't prosecuted. Simply examine the way the issue was presented by frontrunners in the supposedly liberal party of the United Sta

>I don't understand why this isn't prosecuted. Simply examine the way the issue was presented by frontrunners in the supposedly liberal party of the United States on the debate stage yesterday. Two candidates call for true universal coverage, a few call for a public option but brand it as universal coverage to confuse viewers, and several (with moderator and broadcast sponsor support) outright mislead by stating that universal coverage that eliminates private insurance will threaten access to health care. We have a long way to go.

misosayer 7y ago
Elizabeth Warren’s plans are very vague, and only a few weeks old at this point. We still know very little about what she actually proposes. Bernie Sanders’ plans are about 5 years old at this point, and have been modified, but are rather solid.
dcposch 7y ago
Three candidates actually. (Bernie, Warren, and Yang.) ... Loss aversion is a powerful emotion with destructive effects on our politics. Once enough people have something to lose from a change, change becomes extremely hard, even if the overall net effect would be positive. Not only does this preserve bad policies, it turns some into a one-way ratchet--where it's easy to make things worse and very hard to make them better. Examples - Medical middlemen (insurance, insurance brokers, billing companies...) are pure waste. But they employ so many people and generate so much revenue that they are very hard to attack. The US has slowly climbed to ~2x the per-person medical spending of our peers... so now, any effort to reduce that to 1.9x will be met with fierce resistance. - Prison guard unions are powerful nationally and in many states, including California. They fight any and all attempts to reduce incarceration. That was true in 1980 with ~100 prisoners per 100k population... and it's true now with ~650, by far the highest in the world. - Realtors and car dealers essentially tax the two biggest purchases most people in America make, house and car. They have powerful lobbies in all 50 states. There is no particular amount that will placate these rent-seekers. They just never want their income stream reduced.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  They could be strung up as combined they do not have enough marketing power as a strong populist political party. Unfortunately, as we've seen, the closest USA has for this is Trump, who is playing the Republican playbook. Both parties are economically right wing. Third party is easily squished by tribalism and system being unbalanced.
danenania 7y ago
I strongly support the Warren/Sanders universal healthcare plan, but in terms of optics, I don't actually see what the point is to making “duplicate coverage” private insurance illegal. It invites FUD and provides a convenient bogeyman while being entirely irrelevant in practical terms. If the government is providing comprehensive free healthcare to all, why would anyone need duplicate private health insurance? There's no reason to make it illegal, because there's no reason anyone would continue to pay for it. It will shrivel up and die on its own.
- jellicle 7y ago
  The reason is so that there aren't "boutique" private practices. Keeping the rich people in the same boat as the poor people is actually quite important for the long-term health and welfare of the system. Members of the Canadian parliament have the same healthcare system as anyone else. Thus they aren't terribly tempted to cut it. If private insurance was allowed (in Canada), the elite would have expensive plans that had physicians only caring for a few people each, and so on. This worsens the care in the general system but more importantly, it splits the interests of the elite from the general public.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    So how do you justify to your family that you are voting for someone who will reduce availability of very specialized treatment for them (those boutique doctors), so some random people you've never heard of can have better care "on average"? Becuase that's where I get stuck.
    - omegaworks 7y ago
      Specialized care is not synonymous with boutique care. We have a robust research and development economy in the US that will continue to exist without the perverse incentives of private insurance.
      - dmitrygr 7y ago

misosayer 7y ago

Elizabeth Warren’s plans are very vague, and only a few weeks old at this point. We still know very little about what she actually proposes. Bernie Sanders’ plans are about 5 years old at this point, and have been modified, but are rather solid.

dcposch 7y ago

Three candidates actually. (Bernie, Warren, and Yang.) ... Loss aversion is a powerful emotion with destructive effects on our politics. Once enough people have something to lose from a change, change becomes extremely hard, even if the overall net effect would be positive. Not only does this preserve bad policies, it turns some into a one-way ratchet--where it's easy to make things worse and very hard to make them better. Examples - Medical middlemen (insurance, insurance brokers, billing companies...) are pure waste. But they employ so many people and generate so much revenue that they are very hard to attack. The US has slowly climbed to ~2x the per-person medical spending of our peers... so now, any effort to reduce that to 1.9x will be met with fierce resistance. - Prison guard unions are powerful nationally and in many states, including California. They fight any and all attempts to reduce incarceration. That was true in 1980 with ~100 prisoners per 100k population... and it's true now with ~650, by far the highest in the world. - Realtors and car dealers essentially tax the two biggest purchases most people in America make, house and car. They have powerful lobbies in all 50 states. There is no particular amount that will placate these rent-seekers. They just never want their income stream reduced.

AstralStorm 7y ago
They could be strung up as combined they do not have enough marketing power as a strong populist political party. Unfortunately, as we've seen, the closest USA has for this is Trump, who is playing the Republican playbook. Both parties are economically right wing. Third party is easily squished by tribalism and system being unbalanced.

danenania 7y ago

I strongly support the Warren/Sanders universal healthcare plan, but in terms of optics, I don't actually see what the point is to making “duplicate coverage” private insurance illegal. It invites FUD and provides a convenient bogeyman while being entirely irrelevant in practical terms. If the government is providing comprehensive free healthcare to all, why would anyone need duplicate private health insurance? There's no reason to make it illegal, because there's no reason anyone would continue to pay for it. It will shrivel up and die on its own.

jellicle 7y ago
The reason is so that there aren't "boutique" private practices. Keeping the rich people in the same boat as the poor people is actually quite important for the long-term health and welfare of the system. Members of the Canadian parliament have the same healthcare system as anyone else. Thus they aren't terribly tempted to cut it. If private insurance was allowed (in Canada), the elite would have expensive plans that had physicians only caring for a few people each, and so on. This worsens the care in the general system but more importantly, it splits the interests of the elite from the general public.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  So how do you justify to your family that you are voting for someone who will reduce availability of very specialized treatment for them (those boutique doctors), so some random people you've never heard of can have better care "on average"? Becuase that's where I get stuck.
  - omegaworks 7y ago
    Specialized care is not synonymous with boutique care. We have a robust research and development economy in the US that will continue to exist without the perverse incentives of private insurance.
    - dmitrygr 7y ago