[mike777]

barmar, on 2017-March-24, 09:03, said:

Voting is a right, but that doesn't mean the government will send someone to drive you to the poll.

actually in a way they do......they send a driver to my house with a ballot and a driver to my house to pick up the ballot. OTOH you are correct it seems I do not yet have the right to a robot driver car or free uber just yet .....give it time.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2017-March-24, 09:16, said:

I think there are a few causes of this.

First, there have always been kooks who came up with "alternative facts". The difference now is that the Internet makes it easy for them to spread their ideas far and wide, and gullible people eat it up.

Second, in recent decades much of the population has become distrustful of the establishment. Watergate and a number of political scandals since then have made us distrustful of government. And lay people tend to think that scientists are elitists, and trying to pull conspiracies. It doesn't help that technology has put many of them out of work and created weapons of mass distruction that scare them.

This has resulted in an anti-science backlash.

In some ways the backlash you describe against the forces you point out seems to make a "basic income" more of a political reality.

Parijs and Vanderborght just published a new book on the subject of "basic Income".

"It may sound crazy to pay people an income whether or not they are working or looking for work. But the idea of providing an unconditional basic income to every individual, rich or poor, active or inactive, has been advocated by such major thinkers as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and John Kenneth Galbraith. For a long time, it was hardly noticed and never taken seriously. Today, with the traditional welfare state creaking under pressure, it has become one of the most widely debated social policy proposals in the world. Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght present the most comprehensive defense of this radical idea so far, advocating it as our most realistic hope for addressing economic insecurity and social exclusion in the twenty-first century.
The authors seamlessly combine philosophy, politics, and economics as they compare the idea of a basic income with rival ideas past and present for guarding against poverty and unemployment. They trace its history, tackle the economic"

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2017-March-24, 13:50, said:

Looks like the republicans found it impossible to come up with anything better than the ACA, so threw in the towel. Seems like I was hoping in vain for Trump to reveal his wonderful, best-in-the-world health care plan for us. Oh well. Now he can focus on explaining to the generals how to eradicate ISIS once and for all.

Yes, a huge victory for the Democrats, they are gleeful. I note that not one Democrat would vote for the destruction of the entitlement.

[y66]

Swamp 1. Trump 0.

[blackshoe]

"Voting is a right."

Yeah. Some idiot politician here in New York is proposing that failure to vote be made a crime.

[mike777]

Today is a clear victory for single payer health care in some form such as the UK or Canada....not that I really understand how dthey differ or work. As far as posters explanation it always seems single payer health care is not a single payer...but be that as it may....

It may take ten years until single payer can declare a clear victory.....but today the victory is in sight and unstoppable!

[ldrews]

mike777, on 2017-March-24, 23:27, said:

Today is a clear victory for single payer health care in some form such as the UK or Canada....not that I really understand how dthey differ or work. As far as posters explanation it always seems single payer health care is not a single payer...but be that as it may....

It may take ten years until single payer can declare a clear victory.....but today the victory is in sight and unstoppable!

Could you lay out your reasoning, please. Today looks to me like a defeat of the Republican attempt to mess with Obamacare, leaving it intact. Obamacare is pretty far from a single-payer system.

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-March-24, 23:53, said:

Could you lay out your reasoning, please. Today looks to me like a defeat of the Republican attempt to mess with Obamacare, leaving it intact. Obamacare is pretty far from a single-payer system.

Part of Obamacare was a big expansion of the single-payer share of US healthcare, with about 10.7 million signing up who previously were not eligible before, but also about 3.5 million who were.

Ryancare wanted to undo this expansion. This was part of the reason it was projected to increase the number of uninsured by 24 million, and that was part of the reason the bill failed. If this didn't get through the House despite a big Republican majority, it is hard to see this expansion ever being repealed.

Meanwhile, the individual market is potentially much more unstable. It is much easier to imagine the exchanges collapsing, followed by a repeal of that part of Obamacare. Meanwhile, the most promising and logical fix to Obamacare exchanges proposed by anyone is an expansion of single payer: Medicare expansion for anyone over 55. It takes the most expensive patients off the exchanges while offering them affordable insurance.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2017-March-24, 14:15, said:

In some ways the backlash you describe against the forces you point out seems to make a "basic income" more of a political reality.

Parijs and Vanderborght just published a new book on the subject of "basic Income".

"It may sound crazy to pay people an income whether or not they are working or looking for work. But the idea of providing an unconditional basic income to every individual, rich or poor, active or inactive, has been advocated by such major thinkers as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and John Kenneth Galbraith. For a long time, it was hardly noticed and never taken seriously. Today, with the traditional welfare state creaking under pressure, it has become one of the most widely debated social policy proposals in the world. Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght present the most comprehensive defense of this radical idea so far, advocating it as our most realistic hope for addressing economic insecurity and social exclusion in the twenty-first century.
The authors seamlessly combine philosophy, politics, and economics as they compare the idea of a basic income with rival ideas past and present for guarding against poverty and unemployment. They trace its history, tackle the economic"

Well, it seems to be working for the banks....(QE 1, 2,3 etc.)

[jogs]

The looming doctor shortage. Every article says we need to educate more doctors. There needs to be a more pragmatic and less expensive solution. Ottlik tells us when one encounters an unexpected problem it may be right for an alternate tack. Politicians' approach to every problem is to continue the same methodology which wasn't working, only throw more money at it. Time to think outside of the box. Make the nurse practitioner the face of healthcare. NPs can be trained in 21 months. Even now doctors don't visit end-of-life patients who stay at home. Doctors stopped making house calls in the fifties. NPs will often work under supervision of a physician.

[jogs]

cherdano, on 2017-March-25, 05:34, said:

Part of Obamacare was a big expansion of the single-payer share of US healthcare, with about 10.7 million signing up who previously were not eligible before, but also about 3.5 million who were.

Ryancare wanted to undo this expansion.

Medicare and medicaid is single-payer like. Seems like most doctors accept medicare and many refuse medicaid. Is anyone here working in the healthcare field? Is the payment schedule for medicaid lower than medicare? Are there fifty different payment schedules in medicaid, one for each state?
Why can't the uninsured enroll into medicaid, only the services are not free?

Quote

Meanwhile, the individual market is potentially much more unstable. It is much easier to imagine the exchanges collapsing, followed by a repeal of that part of Obamacare. Meanwhile, the most promising and logical fix to Obamacare exchanges proposed by anyone is an expansion of single payer: Medicare expansion for anyone over 55. It takes the most expensive patients off the exchanges while offering them affordable insurance.

These politicians speak of a family of four receiving tax credits up to an income of $100,000. Give me a break. How many people earning over $100K/yr don't have health insurance from their employer?

[barmar]

jogs, on 2017-March-25, 08:03, said:

Why can't the uninsured enroll into medicaid, only the services are not free?

I have asked you several times to explain this. The whole point of medicaid is that the government pays it. What does it mean to enroll in it if it's not free? How is that different from just paying the doctor out of pocket? And if they can't afford insurance, why would they be able to afford non-free medicaid?

Quote

These politicians speak of a family of four receiving tax credits up to an income of $100,000. Give me a break. How many people earning over $100K/yr don't have health insurance from their employer?

Me. BBO is a small enough company that it's not required to provide health insurance. Luckily I have no problem affording individual insurance. Although I decided this year to drop my dental plan -- it was costing $600/year, had a maximum $1,000 payout, and didn't cover expensive procedures (I had to pay about $1500 a couple of years ago for a root canal and implants).

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2017-March-24, 14:10, said:

actually in a way they do......they send a driver to my house with a ballot and a driver to my house to pick up the ballot. OTOH you are correct it seems I do not yet have the right to a robot driver car or free uber just yet .....give it time.

The trouble is registering to vote, not voting. If you are registered you can get a postal,or absentee ballot, I assume everywhere in the US.

[kenberg]

Phase 1, campaign: Trump has a health care plan. It will cover everyone, it will cost much less, it will be really terrific.

Phase 2, after the election: Trump has no plan, Ryan does.Trump shows little interest in discussing this or working through problems, he just plans to come after anyone who doesn't vote for it.

Phase 3, the bill fails: The new plan is to do nothing to make the ACA work better, do whatever can be done to obstruct it, let it explode. Health care? Past tense.

This is not a person who has any interest whatsoever in the well being of individuals in need of care or any interest in the well being of the nation. His basic nature is on full display and, since health care is important to just about everyone, this time it will be difficult for him it just tweet his way out of it.

Could we redo the election? After all, the last one had massive voter fraud so it seems there is a case t be made for a do over.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-24, 19:20, said:

"Voting is a right."

Yeah. Some idiot politician here in New York is proposing that failure to vote be made a crime.

I like the Australian model. Vote or pay a fine (if I'm not mistaken) and the fine is not a yuge amount. That would put the brakes on the GOP voter suppression tactics once and for all.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2017-March-25, 09:19, said:

The trouble is registering to vote, not voting. If you are registered you can get a postal,or absentee ballot, I assume everywhere in the US.

I cant speak for the Uk but here in the USA becoming a registered voter is pretty easy...ignore all the crap about voter suppression...it only exists as a talking point for dems.

Keep in mind most who don't register don't really want to be bothered...Keep in mind about one third don't bother to vote for President despite being registered....other vote/races are closer to 20% who bother to vote. Again most just don't bother to vote...not because the white man is out to stop them

[mike777]

ldrews, on 2017-March-24, 23:53, said:

Could you lay out your reasoning, please. Today looks to me like a defeat of the Republican attempt to mess with Obamacare, leaving it intact. Obamacare is pretty far from a single-payer system.

OK for sake of discussion lets call what the UK or Canada or medicare is some version of single payer....again I don't fully understand how singlepayer works and it seems most don't in full understand.

So that means over 65 we have single payer today.
IN fact for some under 65 the government pays all or almost all of their health care.

Obama care was designed to fail..it has been in failure mode for some time...the only question is when will it implode. My guess is less than ten years from today.

However even today America is ...more comfortable with the idea of DC paying for health care f or people under 65 then it was 8 years ago. This is a key, important point. Now America I am willing to bet will never understand single payer...we don't understand medicare...we don't understand who or what the supreme court is...etc

However America does understand preexisting conditions...well many of us do...something which no one wants to go back to 8 years ago.

Now fast forward ten years...America becomes more and more comfortable with the idea of medicare for all including those under 65..we wont understand in full how it works...we wont understand who pays for it....we wont understand if and how it stifles innovation......but America will become comfortable with the idea of free stuff

Now lets talk about voters....about one third don't bother to vote today...about one third today would vote for single payer...whatever that is.....and about one third will not vote for single payer....so I am saying in ten years....dthe number of actuall voters will get to be over 50% for single payer from what ever the number is today.

In fact some polls say more than 50% support single payer for all today but whatever the actual number is...it seems to be growing...not shrinking..--------------

-------------------

edit I wanted to add some numbers...HC is around 17-20% of GDP today...for the Swiss it is around 10%...still pretty darn high....DThe usa has the best health care but it is not twice as good as the Swiss...this is a problem in search of some solution...

Now if single payer in fact ends up still costing 20% of GDP..then we got a problem....

[mike777]

ggwhiz, on 2017-March-25, 13:52, said:

I like the Australian model. Vote or pay a fine (if I'm not mistaken) and the fine is not a yuge amount. That would put the brakes on the GOP voter suppression tactics once and for all.

what happens if they say fyou I am not paying no stinkin fine....jail...they take your house?

[ldrews]

mike777, on 2017-March-25, 18:00, said:

what happens if they say fyou I am not paying no stinkin fine....jail...they take your house?

Don't know if they actually would, but they probably have the legal authority to do so.

Extreme case in the USA 40 or so years ago: in Utah a father resisted sending his child to public school. He barricaded his family in their house. He was shot and killed during a confrontation with the Sheriff who was sent to enforce the state law that all children above a certain age must be enrolled in school.

[mike777]

One of many problems single payer has is no one seems to fully understand it and how and what it touches.

For starters if we define single payer as the central government is the one and only payer of the entire and I want to emphasize the entire health care system from top to bottom, something that is more than what medicare...the UK or Canadian system is.....well no one seems to support that

so we get back to square one...exactly what does the government pay for...control...have power over? I assume it is paid by young working folks...not by children not by old folks..not by poor folks..not by those who do not work....in other words it is paid for by less than 50% of us.

In any event I would think many many people would vote for single payer as long as others pay for all or most of it.
...

edit I note it seems the UK does not have a "true" single payer system but Canada does have a "true" single payer system. It seems in Canada it is paid by taxes on taxable income. Have no idea what taxable income means in detail in Canada or who pays how much of single payer in Canada
At the very least it means we need to define taxable income as similar to Canada to pay for single payer.

For starters that means no home mortgage interest deduction and that is just for starters!