41 ms·

A lot of the country’s problems are not intractable. Perhaps it’s the two party system that’s intractable where both parties are more interested in vying for po

A lot of the country’s problems are not intractable. Perhaps it’s the two party system that’s intractable where both parties are more interested in vying for power and defeating their enemies than actually coming up with practical solutions. The current discourse on the major issues sure does make one believe that the only solution is for one side to just die out, but that really isn’t the case. Take abortion for instance. I think if a Democrat came around and said “no abortion is a good abortion” and created a policy to reduce abortions not through prohibition but through funding research of new contraceptions, family planning, and education, that could make for a widely popular platform. Or for immigration, how about we let States determine how many migrants are allowed to live and work there? If California wants to welcome lots of immigrants, let them. If Wisconsin doesn’t want any, that’s fine too. Let’s have a visa program that limits which states they’re allow to live an work in. Regarding health care: single payer is not going to happen. But why is the debate cast as there only being two options—single payer and the system we have now? Single payer is very rare throughout the world, and the best health care systems are not single payer. Perhaps we could have something like Medicaid for all, ie provide very basic coverage to everyone, and then most people will have private insurance on top of that? There are a whole bunch of other options that no one is even talking about. I could go on. There are pathways to cooling the animosity between the two parties. Of course, Fox News and CNN and Twitter and Facebook make their money by riling everyone up and pitting us against each other.

derekp7 5y ago
For health care, I would tackle it in multiple phases. First phase, make Medicare purchasable by anyone. Specifically if a small company can get a better deal by buying through Medicare, then let them. Along with that would be restrictions that would prevent Medicare from charging more to one small employer than another based solely on the past health conditions or demographics of their employee base. And it would be available without networks, so you could use it anywhere. I think that would be the biggest win, so that you don't get hit with a large bill if you happen to get sick when out of town. Secondly -- increase the employer's FICA rate, and credit it back if they provide health insurance to their employees. That way if someone works more than 40 hours a week, but spread across three part time employers, they could still get enough FICA medicare credits to be eligible for a Medicare-provided group plan. (Or, the credits could go to whatever provider the employee wants). Finally, change the messaging. I hear from a lot of conservatives that they don't want to be stuck paying for someone else's healthcare. My answer -- they are paying for it anyway. If an uninsured and poor person ends up in the ER, they still receive treatment, and if they can't pay then it is written off and/or paid for with tax money or increased costs for everyone else. The messaging that I give to people that oppose universal coverage, is that the coverage would "make these uninsured people pay their own way through their own taxes". Now obviously there is still a payment imbalance, but it is still a message that may get through to the conservatives.
- dragonsky 5y ago
  Why does health care have anything to do with employers? I simply don't get it. Somebodies health care should not be threatened simply because they may lose a job.
  - derekp7 5y ago
    From what I understand, it was a way to attract employees during a time of wage freezes. And once that happened, you had the people paying for the health care being different people from those that consumed it. So that allowed prices to skyrocket. Now you have a situation where this is the accepted normal. In some countries, the company you work for provides your housing. You get fired, you directly lose your apartment / dorm room.
jfengel 5y ago
I think if a Democrat came around and said “no abortion is a good abortion” and created a policy to reduce abortions not through prohibition but through funding research of new contraceptions, family planning, and education, that could make for a widely popular platform. I doubt that. Republicans would still hate everything else about them. Some Democrats would agree, but for many abortion is incredibly important -- because even many Republicans agree that there are some abortions (like for women who have been raped) that are acceptable. how about we let States determine how many migrants are allowed to live and work there Because the Constitution guarantees that people can freely move from one state to another. There is no Constitutional way to enforce those borders, and I don't think either party is going to like anything in that direction. People are not missing simple solutions. There are difficult problems of living together that aren't solved with a one-liner. They're also not the real issue. Living together is genuinely hard, but it only becomes impossible when the individual people have made hostility a fundamental goal. Our disagreements about the issues have become almost completely subordinate to tribalism. I won't hide that I consider some people more responsible for that than others, but it doesn't really matter who. Any solution won't come from ratcheting down tensions on individual issues, even if that were possible. Some powerful corporations and leaders have profited from it, but at this point it's self-sustaining, and there is no easy solution.

derekp7 5y ago

For health care, I would tackle it in multiple phases. First phase, make Medicare purchasable by anyone. Specifically if a small company can get a better deal by buying through Medicare, then let them. Along with that would be restrictions that would prevent Medicare from charging more to one small employer than another based solely on the past health conditions or demographics of their employee base. And it would be available without networks, so you could use it anywhere. I think that would be the biggest win, so that you don't get hit with a large bill if you happen to get sick when out of town. Secondly -- increase the employer's FICA rate, and credit it back if they provide health insurance to their employees. That way if someone works more than 40 hours a week, but spread across three part time employers, they could still get enough FICA medicare credits to be eligible for a Medicare-provided group plan. (Or, the credits could go to whatever provider the employee wants). Finally, change the messaging. I hear from a lot of conservatives that they don't want to be stuck paying for someone else's healthcare. My answer -- they are paying for it anyway. If an uninsured and poor person ends up in the ER, they still receive treatment, and if they can't pay then it is written off and/or paid for with tax money or increased costs for everyone else. The messaging that I give to people that oppose universal coverage, is that the coverage would "make these uninsured people pay their own way through their own taxes". Now obviously there is still a payment imbalance, but it is still a message that may get through to the conservatives.

dragonsky 5y ago
Why does health care have anything to do with employers? I simply don't get it. Somebodies health care should not be threatened simply because they may lose a job.
- derekp7 5y ago
  From what I understand, it was a way to attract employees during a time of wage freezes. And once that happened, you had the people paying for the health care being different people from those that consumed it. So that allowed prices to skyrocket. Now you have a situation where this is the accepted normal. In some countries, the company you work for provides your housing. You get fired, you directly lose your apartment / dorm room.

jfengel 5y ago

I think if a Democrat came around and said “no abortion is a good abortion” and created a policy to reduce abortions not through prohibition but through funding research of new contraceptions, family planning, and education, that could make for a widely popular platform. I doubt that. Republicans would still hate everything else about them. Some Democrats would agree, but for many abortion is incredibly important -- because even many Republicans agree that there are some abortions (like for women who have been raped) that are acceptable. how about we let States determine how many migrants are allowed to live and work there Because the Constitution guarantees that people can freely move from one state to another. There is no Constitutional way to enforce those borders, and I don't think either party is going to like anything in that direction. People are not missing simple solutions. There are difficult problems of living together that aren't solved with a one-liner. They're also not the real issue. Living together is genuinely hard, but it only becomes impossible when the individual people have made hostility a fundamental goal. Our disagreements about the issues have become almost completely subordinate to tribalism. I won't hide that I consider some people more responsible for that than others, but it doesn't really matter who. Any solution won't come from ratcheting down tensions on individual issues, even if that were possible. Some powerful corporations and leaders have profited from it, but at this point it's self-sustaining, and there is no easy solution.