3 ms·

That's just the unclear messaging that the right wing is taking advantage of. I don't have a NYT subscription so I can't see the whole article, but as far as I

That's just the unclear messaging that the right wing is taking advantage of. I don't have a NYT subscription so I can't see the whole article, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing in that article that mentions actually preventing companies from offering private health insurance--it's just assumed (correctly) that these companies will be operating at a miniscule fraction of their current scale when people can obtain health insurance from a single payer, because few people will pay for private health insurance when there are better, cheaper options. As I've reiterated repeatedly, this isn't a loss of options. Health insurance companies can still operate and consumers can still pay for private health insurance, they'll simply be competing with a cheaper alternative that doesn't have a perverse incentive to deny care. I suppose you could make the argument that there will be fewer options because some of these insurance companies will go bankrupt, but that's just capitalism--there's nothing about the current system which guarantees health insurance companies will remain solvent or guarantees a variety of insurance options. In practice there are many places in the U.S. where there's effectively only one health insurance option.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
you are wrong again! please read the article >There are few international analogues to the Medicare for all proposals, but Canada, which provides similar doctor and hospital benefits for its residents, probably comes closest. Even there, people buy private insurance for benefits that are not covered by the government program, like prescription drugs and dental care. Most other countries with single-payer systems allow a more expansive, competing role for private coverage. In Britain, for example, everyone is covered by a public system, but people can pay extra for insurance that gives them access to private doctors. https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254 https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  There is nothing in what you quoted that refutes anything I said. If you have something to say, say it--I'm not going to buy a NYT subscription so that I can speculate what you are referring when you can't be bothered to explain yourself.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I provided you a link to the article. Im not asking you to buy a NYT subscription.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      Okay, I see the article now, but I still don't see anything that supports your claim that the left is/was fixated on taking away private healthcare options. Your claim at face value is absurd: if you want to waste your money on private insurance that is more expensive and will do everything they can to not pay out, have at it. Why would anyone on the left care? I assure you we don't. We're trying to give people healthcare, not take away options. The only coherent complaint you have actually stated seems to be a poorly-communicated complaint that you don't get to pick and choose which taxes you pay. If that's your complaint, I find it a bit surprising that you want to start by opting out of paying for healthcare instead of, say, corporate subsidies to predatory lenders, farm subsidies to corn which is turned into HFCS, or NSA violating privacy of citizens. Or, for that matter, existing healthcare subsidies which are more expensive than single-payer healthcare would be?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Of course I dont want to waste my money. I dont think claiming I do is good faith discussion. Same with with assuming I want or support your long list of other subsidies. You seem to be arguing with a strawman instead of what I'm saying. If you support a public healthcare option where I can choose to opt of the cost and service, then you have my support too! It is really that simple.
        kerkeslager 2y ago
        > You seem to be arguing with a strawman instead of what I'm saying. No, I'm arguing with the reality of what you're saying. You want to block single-payer if it can't be opted out of--is that a straw man? Obviously not. I'm just telling you that the results of your ideology are not the results you're hoping for. The real results are: 1. Blocking single-payer if it can't be opted out of has resulted in private healthcare subsidies which are more expensive, and also can't be opted out of. What your ideology has achieved isn't the ability to opt out, it's simply to line the pockets of insurance companies. 2. If you want to start a larger conversation about being able to opt out of government services, why start with healthcare--a thing that people literally need to survive? Frankly, I don't believe that you're a principled believer in being able to opt out of tax: if you were, you'd start with one of the government programs which actively harms people. There are dozens, pick one of those taxes to fight for your right to opt out of instead of deciding that people in need of healthcare should die for your principled opt-out stance. 3. The most important reality of your ideology is that hundreds of thousands of Americans are financially harmed, don't receive healthcare, and ultimately, many of them die from lack of care because of right-wing extremists blocking Americans from receiving care. Your ideology literally kills people. Maybe if you got exactly what you wanted people wouldn't die, but the reality is that by opposing single-payer you're aligning yourself with murderers. No, I'm not holding you personally as responsible as a health insurance CEO, but you do bear some responsibility if you contribute to spreading this abhorrent, selfish ideology. TL;DR: I'm all for a system where we get single-payer and can opt out of it, but that's not a realistic option that's on the table, and in pursuing that goal you're ignoring the real single-payer option and in doing so you're both failing to achieve the results you want and letting people die.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

you are wrong again! please read the article >There are few international analogues to the Medicare for all proposals, but Canada, which provides similar doctor and hospital benefits for its residents, probably comes closest. Even there, people buy private insurance for benefits that are not covered by the government program, like prescription drugs and dental care. Most other countries with single-payer systems allow a more expansive, competing role for private coverage. In Britain, for example, everyone is covered by a public system, but people can pay extra for insurance that gives them access to private doctors. https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254 https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254

kerkeslager 2y ago
There is nothing in what you quoted that refutes anything I said. If you have something to say, say it--I'm not going to buy a NYT subscription so that I can speculate what you are referring when you can't be bothered to explain yourself.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I provided you a link to the article. Im not asking you to buy a NYT subscription.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    Okay, I see the article now, but I still don't see anything that supports your claim that the left is/was fixated on taking away private healthcare options. Your claim at face value is absurd: if you want to waste your money on private insurance that is more expensive and will do everything they can to not pay out, have at it. Why would anyone on the left care? I assure you we don't. We're trying to give people healthcare, not take away options. The only coherent complaint you have actually stated seems to be a poorly-communicated complaint that you don't get to pick and choose which taxes you pay. If that's your complaint, I find it a bit surprising that you want to start by opting out of paying for healthcare instead of, say, corporate subsidies to predatory lenders, farm subsidies to corn which is turned into HFCS, or NSA violating privacy of citizens. Or, for that matter, existing healthcare subsidies which are more expensive than single-payer healthcare would be?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Of course I dont want to waste my money. I dont think claiming I do is good faith discussion. Same with with assuming I want or support your long list of other subsidies. You seem to be arguing with a strawman instead of what I'm saying. If you support a public healthcare option where I can choose to opt of the cost and service, then you have my support too! It is really that simple.
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        > You seem to be arguing with a strawman instead of what I'm saying. No, I'm arguing with the reality of what you're saying. You want to block single-payer if it can't be opted out of--is that a straw man? Obviously not. I'm just telling you that the results of your ideology are not the results you're hoping for. The real results are: 1. Blocking single-payer if it can't be opted out of has resulted in private healthcare subsidies which are more expensive, and also can't be opted out of. What your ideology has achieved isn't the ability to opt out, it's simply to line the pockets of insurance companies. 2. If you want to start a larger conversation about being able to opt out of government services, why start with healthcare--a thing that people literally need to survive? Frankly, I don't believe that you're a principled believer in being able to opt out of tax: if you were, you'd start with one of the government programs which actively harms people. There are dozens, pick one of those taxes to fight for your right to opt out of instead of deciding that people in need of healthcare should die for your principled opt-out stance. 3. The most important reality of your ideology is that hundreds of thousands of Americans are financially harmed, don't receive healthcare, and ultimately, many of them die from lack of care because of right-wing extremists blocking Americans from receiving care. Your ideology literally kills people. Maybe if you got exactly what you wanted people wouldn't die, but the reality is that by opposing single-payer you're aligning yourself with murderers. No, I'm not holding you personally as responsible as a health insurance CEO, but you do bear some responsibility if you contribute to spreading this abhorrent, selfish ideology. TL;DR: I'm all for a system where we get single-payer and can opt out of it, but that's not a realistic option that's on the table, and in pursuing that goal you're ignoring the real single-payer option and in doing so you're both failing to achieve the results you want and letting people die.