4 ms·

What kind of freedom? Many would like to be free to be freelancers without having to worry so much about health insurance. How do we get there?

JaimeThompson 6y ago
I am not so sure that they like the freedom to do that but they see no other way to provide for themselves and their families. Such realities make it rather difficult to prioritize what is better in the long term over the more immediate need to eat.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  While that's true, there's still some number of people who would genuinely rather have freelance and 'gig' jobs for one reason or another if they weren't dependent on the healthcare provided by a 'real' job. The same goes for people who would attempt being entrepreneurs if all they had to worry about losing was money.
humanrebar 6y ago
I think it's not controversial that employer provided health insurance is a silly mechanism. But animosity prevents significant progress away from the status quo.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It's disingenuous to claim that this is purely because of animosity. It is a calculated decision that some people decided that the status quo is better for them that what could be, and in various ways decide to enforce it. Otherwise, how could you explain Obama (for all the ills he committed) taking Romney's healthcare plan, and then the entirety of the Republican magically turning against the plan that they themselves generated? It's not animosity, it is certainly calculated.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    I am certainly not disingenuous. I don't know why you want to impugn my motives in this discussion. I think there are a multitude of smaller problems to solve and smaller steps to take that would be utterly uncontroversial to the wider public. But they will not be considered because both sides are pushing for their big thing and locked into combative attitudes. Same goes for immigration reform for that matter. There's plenty of low grade nonsense to clean up with legislation but the culture of controversy derails trying to find where consensus actually exists and acting on it. A good positive example would be how criminal justice reform was actually attempted recently.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I don't think your motives are wrong, I have certainly myself refrained from facing reality in exactly such matters because the implications are grave. Now, the main thing is this: >But they will not be considered because both sides are pushing for their big thing and locked into combative attitudes. This is not true, as per what I mentioned before. Obama took a Republican healthcare plan, and it was still gridlocked and framed as extremist. The truth is that there are real interests in this country that actively don't want problems to be fixed, and that's the reason why there is so much low grade nonsense that gives you the idea that it's because both sides are intransigent, but past experiments show that trying to collaborate with the obstructionist party just leads to the ratchet effect [0]. In effect, there can never be consensus because the purpose of some is simply obstruction and dysfunction, which is made evident by what happened to Romney's healthcare plan. The only solution is to use an electoral breakthrough, pushed by a not-so-moderate message, to create a new fait-accompli and change the political landscape, otherwise you either fall prey to the ratchet effect or to gridlock.
tetrometal 6y ago
There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't just wish free healthcare into being. Nothing of value is free.
- harimau777 6y ago
  The rest of the developed world has single payer healthcare with results that are generally comparable to those in the US.
  - mmaurizi 6y ago
    This is not true, and keeps getting brought up as if it were. The rest of the developed world has _universal_ healthcare. In many countries it is provided through single-payer, in some it is through mandatory private insurance, in others it is a mix. Where the United States stands alone is not the lack of a universal government program, but that we have many millions of people not covered by any health insurance system at all.
    - harimau777 6y ago
      Fair enough, I don't necessarily see a problem with a non-single payer universal health insurance system as long as it is affordable for people.
- Latty 6y ago
  Here in the UK we pay literally half as much per person for healthcare for similar outcomes, and everyone gets covered with no cost at the point of use, no medical bankruptcy. No one is talking about a free lunch, they are talking about a better, more efficient way of doing it.
  - rtx 6y ago
    Not sure if UK is having same level of medical break through as US.
    - 6y ago

JaimeThompson 6y ago

I am not so sure that they like the freedom to do that but they see no other way to provide for themselves and their families. Such realities make it rather difficult to prioritize what is better in the long term over the more immediate need to eat.

crooked-v 6y ago
While that's true, there's still some number of people who would genuinely rather have freelance and 'gig' jobs for one reason or another if they weren't dependent on the healthcare provided by a 'real' job. The same goes for people who would attempt being entrepreneurs if all they had to worry about losing was money.

humanrebar 6y ago

I think it's not controversial that employer provided health insurance is a silly mechanism. But animosity prevents significant progress away from the status quo.

sudosysgen 6y ago
It's disingenuous to claim that this is purely because of animosity. It is a calculated decision that some people decided that the status quo is better for them that what could be, and in various ways decide to enforce it. Otherwise, how could you explain Obama (for all the ills he committed) taking Romney's healthcare plan, and then the entirety of the Republican magically turning against the plan that they themselves generated? It's not animosity, it is certainly calculated.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  I am certainly not disingenuous. I don't know why you want to impugn my motives in this discussion. I think there are a multitude of smaller problems to solve and smaller steps to take that would be utterly uncontroversial to the wider public. But they will not be considered because both sides are pushing for their big thing and locked into combative attitudes. Same goes for immigration reform for that matter. There's plenty of low grade nonsense to clean up with legislation but the culture of controversy derails trying to find where consensus actually exists and acting on it. A good positive example would be how criminal justice reform was actually attempted recently.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I don't think your motives are wrong, I have certainly myself refrained from facing reality in exactly such matters because the implications are grave. Now, the main thing is this: >But they will not be considered because both sides are pushing for their big thing and locked into combative attitudes. This is not true, as per what I mentioned before. Obama took a Republican healthcare plan, and it was still gridlocked and framed as extremist. The truth is that there are real interests in this country that actively don't want problems to be fixed, and that's the reason why there is so much low grade nonsense that gives you the idea that it's because both sides are intransigent, but past experiments show that trying to collaborate with the obstructionist party just leads to the ratchet effect [0]. In effect, there can never be consensus because the purpose of some is simply obstruction and dysfunction, which is made evident by what happened to Romney's healthcare plan. The only solution is to use an electoral breakthrough, pushed by a not-so-moderate message, to create a new fait-accompli and change the political landscape, otherwise you either fall prey to the ratchet effect or to gridlock.

tetrometal 6y ago

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't just wish free healthcare into being. Nothing of value is free.

harimau777 6y ago
The rest of the developed world has single payer healthcare with results that are generally comparable to those in the US.
- mmaurizi 6y ago
  This is not true, and keeps getting brought up as if it were. The rest of the developed world has _universal_ healthcare. In many countries it is provided through single-payer, in some it is through mandatory private insurance, in others it is a mix. Where the United States stands alone is not the lack of a universal government program, but that we have many millions of people not covered by any health insurance system at all.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    Fair enough, I don't necessarily see a problem with a non-single payer universal health insurance system as long as it is affordable for people.
Latty 6y ago
Here in the UK we pay literally half as much per person for healthcare for similar outcomes, and everyone gets covered with no cost at the point of use, no medical bankruptcy. No one is talking about a free lunch, they are talking about a better, more efficient way of doing it.
- rtx 6y ago
  Not sure if UK is having same level of medical break through as US.
  - 6y ago