Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Incredulity 11680]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Or we could all pay into the same system like every other goddamned developed nation in the fucking world.

So you advocate a flat tax.

[wildcat09 29360]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

So you advocate a flat tax.

You don't read too good.

[Incredulity 11680]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You don't read too good.

Sure I do.  Read it again.  Brainiac.

[Fozzz 152]

Some people itt seem to be laboring under the delusion that universal healthcare would be more expensive, and burdensome to our economy than our current system. 

[Brisketexan 105188]

Some people itt seem to be laboring under the delusion that universal healthcare would be more expensive, and burdensome to our economy than our current system. 

Yeah...that’s something I don’t get.

We have massive utilization of health care. We have massive costs (see your insurance premiums, see Medicare and Medicaid) paid in a variety of ways. That’s the way it is right now.

Something like “Medicare for all” doesn’t add to those costs. It consolidates them. There may well be lots of other pros and cons, but “how are we gonna pay for it?” should be answered “with the kajilions we’re already spending.”

[InkaUtexas 26025]

well it is called a system. For some reason once we name something a system (healthcare, education, prison) the costs tend to jump. 

[Fozzz 152]

In this instance, even the Koch brothers would disagree (albeit unwittingly). 

[Brisketexan 105188]

well it is called a system. For some reason once we name something a system (healthcare, education, prison) the costs tend to jump. 

We already have the highest costs in the world.

The data point we have tells us that our current approach is fiscal insanity.

[Celery Man 20981]

But what if i am a hard worker and other people are not hard workers and they might get things.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah...that’s something I don’t get.

We have massive utilization of health care. We have massive costs (see your insurance premiums, see Medicare and Medicaid) paid in a variety of ways. That’s the way it is right now.

Something like “Medicare for all” doesn’t add to those costs. It consolidates them. There may well be lots of other pros and cons, but “how are we gonna pay for it?” should be answered “with the kajilions we’re already spending.”

There is zero chance my family insurance, employer backed, no deductible in network for the entire family that costs me $200/month won't be 3x that at least under a Universal Healthcare. 

I know, I know, screw me and it's the utilitarian ethics that should prevail and what is best for the greater amount of people, not me and my dumb luck, right? I should just smile and say, yes, sure I'd love to pay more money and have worse coverage. ammiiirrriiiiite?

[Fozzz 152]

You are free to have your voice heard just as loudly as someone with a family plan paying four figures a month with a four figure deductible.  On balance, we know which side has more to complain about. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Fozzz

[Guest]

Just now, Fozzz said:

You are free to have your voice heard just as loudly as someone with a family plan paying four figures a month with a four figure deductible.  On balance, which side has more to complain about. 

I don't disagree with you.

I guess it's more of the mild-to-medium disappointment that a good thing you got going is not gonna be so good anymore. On one hand, I know it's not really anything I did to be privileged/lucky enough to have a good situation but on the other hand, it was something I sought and made sure to target/negotiate when looking for an employer and it irks me when others act like they don't have the opportunity to do the same (the others that really do, like most UT grads on this website, as opposed to, you know, the others that don't).

[hpslugga 4062]

8 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Some people itt seem to be laboring under the delusion that universal healthcare would be more expensive, and burdensome to our economy than our current system. 

It wouldn’t be America without a large contingent of people mindlessly regurgitating corporate nonsense

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

There is zero chance my family insurance, employer backed, no deductible in network for the entire family that costs me $200/month won't be 3x that at least under a Universal Healthcare. 

I know, I know, screw me and it's the utilitarian ethics that should prevail and what is best for the greater amount of people, not me and my dumb luck, right? I should just smile and say, yes, sure I'd love to pay more money and have worse coverage. ammiiirrriiiiite?

Your policy premium is not 200 a month. Your employer pays most of it as part of your compensation package. 

[Brisketexan 105188]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Your policy premium is not 200 a month. Your employer pays most of it as part of your compensation package. 

Fucking....THIS.

Jesus lord, there is no such thing as a full-coverage low-deductible family plan that costs $200 a month.  It may cost YOU $200, but that's because your employer is paying most of it.  Trust me, we're pricing insurance right now.  A LOW-deductible family plan?  Well over $2,000 a month.  No matter who your carrier is.

Try again, because you excluded a rather major piece of data (your employer's contribution).

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Your policy premium is not 200 a month. Your employer pays most of it as part of your compensation package. 

Yea I said that.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fucking....THIS.

Jesus lord, there is no such thing as a full-coverage low-deductible family plan that costs $200 a month.  It may cost YOU $200, but that's because your employer is paying most of it.  Trust me, we're pricing insurance right now.  A LOW-deductible family plan?  Well over $2,000 a month.  No matter who your carrier is.

Try again, because you excluded a rather major piece of data (your employer's contribution).

I said that. “Employer backed” along with the commentary of “look at the insurance benefits as part of the calculus to decide who you work for” means that I understand what virtually every other adult in the US does, no need to lose your hairpiece

Edited November 15, 2018 by Guest

[Bozo_Casanova 26516]

There is zero chance my family insurance, employer backed, no deductible in network for the entire family that costs me $200/month won't be 3x that at least under a Universal Healthcare. 

False

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

False

If I can get the same benefits I have now then sign me up!

But haven’t we heard that line before and it was a lie? Can we really blame people for not believing politicians forecasts and models?

Edited November 15, 2018 by Guest

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I said that. “Employer backed” along with the commentary of “look at the insurance benefits as part of the calculus to decide who you work for” means that I understand what virtually every other adult in the US does and you lost your hairpiece over.

Now imagine a world where your employer pays you 1500 a month more, you pay a 1000 a month "premium" for single payer, and you are free to change jobs without having to worry about whether your new employer's insurance provider will cover junior's asthma inhaler or your daughter's club foot.  Or gasp, you could even start your own business since your insurance plan will no longer make sure you stay married to your current employer.

[Bozo_Casanova 26516]

By the way- low/no deductible insurance is really stupid and bad, just an FYI
You should never choose to privately insure predictable expenses that you can pay for out of pocket.

[Bozo_Casanova 26516]

If I can get the same benefits I have now then sign me up!

You’d have to move to another country, but that’s a win-win.

It’s simply false to say that you have a better deal from a price/value perspective under your employer plan than you would have in the private system of a European country. It’s just not true. We have the least cost effective system for everyone, including you. You just think you’ve got it good because you are bartering labor for most of a two-steps-away payment service your employer gets to write off.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way- low/no deductible insurance is really stupid and bad, just an FYI
You should never choose to privately insure predictable expenses that you can pay for out of pocket.

Sure, okay. For those of us who only use primary care physicians for the kids yearly check up and obgyn and then go to the CVS minute clinic for $20 the one time a year someone has strep and needs penicillin, taking $200 out of my check to safeguard against catastrophe is the ideal situation. 

[Brisketexan 105188]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

By the way- low/no deductible insurance is really stupid and bad, just an FYI
You should never choose to privately insure predictable expenses that you can pay for out of pocket.

This.  I generally go with a lower to mid-tier plan (higher deductible, but not a full-on high-deductible HSA plan).  Which is NOT the most financially sound decision....but I do so with eyes wide open because when I've done that plan, the headache and hassle of tracking HSA expenses has driven my wife half-mad (and as I suffer for that, I pay slightly more for peace of mind).

That said, ONE YEAR, I got so frustrated with her bitching that I said FINE, and signed up for the expensive, low-deductible cadillac plan.  Now, that just so happened to be the year that my daughter came down with a really unusual infection, spent a week in the hospital under pretty serious care, and then was on a home-care plan for a couple of months afterwards.  I wrote a single check for $1,000, and then paid not another penny of medical costs that ended up in the low six figures  So, the one year I did it...it paid off.  But that was dumb luck.  I've never signed up for it again.

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You’d have to move to another country, but that’s a win-win.

It’s simply false to say that you have a better deal from a price/value perspective under your employer plan than you would have in the private system of a European country. It’s just not true. We have the least cost effective system for everyone, including you. You just think you’ve got it good because you are bartering labor for most of a two-steps-away payment service your employer gets to write off.

The last sentence is key.

Healthcare has costs.  Period.  SOMEONE pays them.  You, your employer, the government, whomever.  Right now, we (collectively) pay the highest costs in the world.  We do not get particularly exceptional healthcare in return.  We are paying too much for what we get.  We are doing so via an insanely inefficient system.  That inefficient system functions as an artificial constraint on the labor market (you are afraid to move jobs because you'll lose coverage, not have coverage that's as good, etc.).  Those are ALL significant negatives of our system.  Layer on the fact that we're paying Cadillac prices for Camry results, and it's nuts.

[Bozo_Casanova 26516]

Sure, okay. For those of us who only use primary care physicians for the kids yearly check up and obgyn and then go to the CVS minute clinic for $20 the one time a year someone has strep and needs penicillin, taking $200 out of my check to safeguard against catastrophe is the ideal situation. 

Anybody want to tell him?

[Brisketexan 105188]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Anybody want to tell him?

It wouldn't do any good.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Sure, okay. For those of us who only use primary care physicians for the kids yearly check up and obgyn and then go to the CVS minute clinic for $20 the one time a year someone has strep and needs penicillin, taking $200 out of my check to safeguard against catastrophe is the ideal situation. 

You should go ask HR for your total compensation statement.  You're losing a lot more than $200 a month.

[Guest]

Humor me. What am I missing here? I’m open to being wrong and learning, it happens to me often 😛

 

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

On 7/22/2018 at 8:53 PM, Mo Horn said:

free healthcare, college education, and the like and are willing to pay higher taxes for it.

Um?  WTF?

[bad_teammate 13221]

7 minutes ago, ernest_t_bass said:

Um?  WTF?

Me, a brain genius, "WELL ACTUALLY 'free' isn't free. Someone else is paying for it."

All other humans on earth, "Yeah... that's understood."

[Brisketexan 105188]

Imagine that healthcare is delicious, melty American processed cheese food.

There's this kind of cheez:

 

And there's this kind of cheez:

Now, I won't go off on the tangent of nostalgically extolling the benefits of gov't cheese (makes great grilled cheese sammiches).  But fundamentally, these are the same end-product.  The difference is where the money that is transferred to the producer comes from.

For the government cheese, it's taxpayer - government - dairy producers (dairy, cheese manufacturer, etc.)

For the Velveeta, it's consumer - grocery - producers (Kraft, dairy, etc.)

The dollars received at the end of that line are going to be about the same.  the product received is about the same.  And the people at the FRONT of that chain -- the taxpayer/consumer - is IDENTICAL.  I'm paying for that cheese, either as a consumer, or a taxpayer.  Shouldn't I 1) receive cheese that I pay for, and 2) a the best price, 3) with the most economic efficiency?

And if you want to analogize it to our system, I can only be sure that I can buy Velveeta, for an affordable price, if I stay with my current employer.  If I decide that there's a better opportunity for me, like marketing gourmet coffee in Memphis, part of my decision will include "but I might not be able to get Velveeta if I take this job."

To go even further, I only THINK that Velveeta costs $4.29.  The REAL cost is $10, but my employer pays $5.71 of that cost.  And that's $5.71 that my employer is NOT paying me.  Maybe that $5.71 would all go towards taxes to pay for government cheese, under the new single-payer government cheese program.  I don't know.  But some of it will be.

SUMMARY:

There is cheez.  It costs money, no matter how that money flows.  We're paying a lot of money for cheez.  Like, cave-aged gouda-type money.  But we're getting cheez.  And not even everyone can get that cheez.  And we can't be assured of being able to keep getting cheez if we move jobs.

We should all be able to get cheez.  We should pay the least amount of money, collectively, for that cheez.  And we should be able to do so no matter where we work.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Incredulity 11680]

Quote

The dollars received at the end of that line are going to be about the same.  the product received is about the same.  And the people at the FRONT of that chain -- the taxpayer/consumer - is IDENTICAL.  I'm paying for that cheese, either as a consumer, or a taxpayer.  Shouldn't I 1) receive cheese that I pay for, and 2) a the best price, 3) with the most economic efficiency?

The government does nothing, "with the most economic efficiency".  

That said government healthcare may end up better at delivering Pasteurized Process Healthcare than our current bastard of a system, but I have my doubts.  But, your going to get at best Pasteurized Process Healthcare when maybe you need Rouqefort or Swiss.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

The government does nothing, "with the most economic efficiency".  

That said government healthcare may end up better at delivering Pasteurized Process Healthcare than our current bastard of a system, but I have my doubts.  But, your going to get at best Pasteurized Process Healthcare when maybe you need Rouqefort or Swiss.

Yes gov't healthcare will be cheese FOOD and not actual cheese.....

[Guest]

So there are some of you who believe that the employer would pay you more and not keep the money, when it comes to them paying less to subsidize healthcare...and these are the same some of you’s who can’t sleep at night because companies took their tax cut and kept it and didn’t really doll it back out to the common working man.

Maybe I’m a cynic, but I firmly believe our government sucks and I want as little to do with paying anything to it as possible. Military, healthcare, highways, public schools, etc. But I will admit that if the majority of you people vote to bring universal healthcare forward in a meaningful way, I’d just have to playball and do the best I can and that’s fine I won’t freak out about it. I just won’t vote for it. I’m not rich or wealthy and I’m just an average guy with average intellect and average earning power and average value. If I can hold on to above average healthcare costs right now in the reality in which we live in with respect to healthcare (thanks to my employer) I’m trying to. Christmas is coming and Newport’s are about to be banned. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Guest

[jimmyjazz 46005]

It's simply amazing that the United States, the gold standard of independence and broad achievement, is apparently thought to be incapable of instituting policy that is common in much of the Western world without fucking it up.

Single-payer healthcare is not as difficult as putting a man on the moon, but to hear the Trumpies talk, you'd think it was.  I guess when you spend most of your life riding the coattails of others, it becomes ingrained.

[Brisketexan 105188]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The government does nothing, "with the most economic efficiency".  

That said government healthcare may end up better at delivering Pasteurized Process Healthcare than our current bastard of a system, but I have my doubts.  But, your going to get at best Pasteurized Process Healthcare when maybe you need Rouqefort or Swiss.

There are plenty of models out there that allow those who have the means to buy-up so they can get a slice of Gruyere when they need it.

And I know it's easy and lazy to talk about how the government just fucks up everything it touches, but that perspective utterly ignores 1) the bureaucratic inefficiency of large private enterprises (come on, every person who has worked in corporate America has tales to tell) and 2) a layer of profit on top of costs that you pay when private enterprise is involved.

I have friends and colleagues in numerous nations with universal healthcare.  To a person, they are very happy to have it.  And yes, I've heard them gripe...the gripes are similar to those I hear in the US, though.  And none of them are about costs.

There are some things a disjointed private enterprise system is not good at.  It seems rather clear that modern healthcare is one of them.  I would suggest that an interstate highway system operated by 50 different private enterprises, changing providers and costs at random points along the journey (with no transparency about what the cost will be before you begin the journey) is another thing a single enterprise will do better.  I'm glad we don't have competing private enterprises fielding various armies and navies on our behalf.  I'd hate to have to dispatch a carrier battle group to protect our southern flank, only to learn that defending against Russian subs is out-of-network, and we'll need to fork over a $50 billion deductible before they'll deploy.  And we could go on.

The myth that "the government fucks up everything it touches" is as absurd as the myth that "private enterprise can do it better."

[Chad Fuck 17711]

I wish I had just the last sentence for a motivational poster.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Our incompetent government created the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. 

There’s no way they can handle health care. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I’m not rich or wealthy and I’m just an average guy with average intellect and average earning power and average value. If I can hold on to above average healthcare costs right now in the reality in which we live in with respect to healthcare (thanks to my employer) I’m trying to. Christmas is coming and Newport’s are about to be banned. 

As the warrior poet once said:

Holiday season is here and I'm vexed

Who the fuck made Christmas up? I'm fucking broke

it ain't making no sense

Newports are $7.50

A box of Huggies is off the meat rack

She's back, thirty days, she relapsed

Our troops need to leave Iraq

And Leveon Bell need to go on strike so he can get more cash

[Incredulity 11680]

Quote

I would suggest that an interstate highway system operated by 50 different private enterprises, changing providers and costs at random points along the journey (with no transparency about what the cost will be before you begin the journey) is another thing a single enterprise will do better.

Well, there is no "Federal Highway Construction, Paving and Maintenance" division of the federal government.  So in reality we have 50 different state DOT's executing along with multiple private  providers of paving, striping, construction dictates by the Feds, and alot of those projects cost run over.  

[bad_teammate 13221]

16 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Maybe I’m a cynic, but I firmly believe our government sucks and I want as little to do with paying anything to it as possible. Military, healthcare, highways, public schools, etc.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Are you saying that the government sucks at administering military, healthcare, highways, and public schools? And that private industry would do better?

The government does basically everything better than private industry except concentrate public wealth into the hands of the 0.1%, because that is literally all private capital is designed to do.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The myth that "the government fucks up everything it touches" is as absurd as the myth that "private enterprise can do it better."

There are problems with both ends of the spectrum. Government is going to be inefficient relative to private enterprise because their is little to no impetus for Government to improve on a good or service. Private enterprise may be more efficient in most things, but you pay for that efficiency with cost (ie profit).

I think in MOST things, private enterprise can do better because of innovation/ lack of red tape. HOWEVER I believe we are past the tipping point on healthcare. We don't need "innovations" in insurance.We need cheap and effective.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Government run organizations are awful!

*continues to vote for the party that does everything it can to dismantle government*

[bad_teammate 13221]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

There are problems with both ends of the spectrum. Government is going to be inefficient relative to private enterprise because their is little to no impetus for Government to improve on a good or service.

Yes, there is. It's called "election season".

Quote

I think in MOST things, private enterprise can do better because of innovation/ lack of red tape.

The government sent humans to the moon. What does it know about... "innovation".

lol

[Guest]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Are you saying that the government sucks at administering military, healthcare, highways, and public schools? And that private industry would do better?

The government does basically everything better than private industry except concentrate public wealth into the hands of the 0.1%, because that is literally all private capital is designed to do.

I’m saying I prefer to not pay into things the government wants to make compulsory though I realize that’s just a radical idea of utopia. An easy math example is I opt out of ISD to home school my kids I’d like to not have to pay for that, as an example.

The only service I see overwhelming value is the military and that’s what I tell myself, basically pay taxes to protect from being killed by other countries who would if we didn’t have one.

[Brisketexan 105188]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well, there is no "Federal Highway Construction, Paving and Maintenance" division of the federal government.  So in reality we have 50 different state DOT's executing along with multiple private  providers of paving, striping, construction dictates by the Feds, and alot of those projects cost run over.  

In part, true.  The system was kicked off with unified federal matching funding.  And requirements as to road size and quality were part of the mechanism.  As were requirements that it be a free (non-tolled) system.  Etc. etc.  There were many universal aspects to the interstate highway system.

And just like that, universal healthcare doesn't have to be one-size fits all.  There's no reason that there can't be multiple tiers and approaches.

I can get on I-10 in Jacksonville and not stop (except for piss breaks and to stock up on boudin balls in Louisiana) until I get to Santa Monica.  Without paying a single toll.  ANYONE can do it.  That's the universal approach that we're talking about.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, there is. It's called "election season".

The government sent humans to the moon. What does it know about... "innovation".

lol

Sears had an awesome product in 1969. How can you say they are not innovative in 2019!?!

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, there is. It's called "election season".

We get to vote for the morons who work at the DMV? Sweet!

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I’m saying I prefer to not pay into things the government wants to make compulsory though I realize that’s just a radical idea of utopia. An easy math example is I opt out of ISD to home school my kids I’d like to not have to pay for that, as an example.

The only service I see overwhelming value is the military and that’s what I tell myself, basically pay taxes to protect from being killed by other countries who would if we didn’t have one.

And not drive on the roads.

And not call the police.

And not call the fire department.

And not call an ambulance.

And not... actually... call anyone because the waves are owned by the public and the phone and power lines are on public ground.

And... you're really dumb.

[bad_teammate 13221]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

We get to vote for the morons who work at the DMV? Sweet!

You get to vote for the morons who run the DMV. And you know this. You're either outright stupid or being fatuous. The problem with the DMV isn't the people working there (they are the exact same humans working in private industry), it's the larger policy decisions that the DMV office is made to accommodate.

Edited November 15, 2018 by bad_teammate