2020 Democratic presidential primary

I have on idea - more expensive, unnecessary services?

These things would presumably not be covered by the public system. I don't think anyone is advocating banning private insurance from covering things that a public system would not?

I do think private insurers should be prohibited from competing with a universal public payer when it comes to services it covers.

are they advocating banning private insurance from covering things that the public system would? I have no idea tbh I have not been following this debate closely (healthcare honestly not a huge issue for me personally)

xp

everything is so exhausting all the time

life in the fast lane

are they advocating banning private insurance from covering things that the public system would?

This is what "single payer" means aiui (and afaik is the case in Canada).

right, but Medicare-for-all is not really single-payer, since Medicare basically is a way of publicly financing the payment to private insurers afaict?

like, if you are on Medicare that can pay for services from Kaiser or Cigna or Blue Shield or whoever

so I assume cost controls would come through Medicare reimbursement rates being set by the gov't

idk this is all just guesses on my part, this stuff is so fucking convoluted and not my area of expertise

Ha, not mine either since I was assuming M4A meant single payer.

"Medicare for All" I believe to most people pushing it as a minimum price of entry for the D nomination means "the government provides everyone with quality healthcare"; it's a slogan that doesn't have one single policy proposal behind it.

Oh cool that seems like a valid metric lol

we've discussed elsewhere the power of sloganized policy proposals. Something that people can draw on their own experiences and hopes to get behind like "medicare for all" is more useful than the similarly concise but heavily wonkish "single-payer". Like credit to Black Lives Matter here imho for coining the most effective three-word sentence of my lifetime.

Ok I'm gonna ask the world's dumbest question, are old people who are on Medicare not allowed to pay for private health services? I assumed they were.

of course they do, that's how it works

Medicare is a financing mechanism, not a healthcare provider

we've discussed elsewhere the power of sloganized policy proposals. Something that people can draw on their own experiences and hopes to get behind like "medicare for all" is more useful than the similarly concise but heavily wonkish "single-payer".

right, I agree and this is all fine and good. At the same time, it makes ppl taking Harris to task for not explicitly backing some ill-defined and/or non-existent policy look like an argument being made in bad faith. She co-sponsored a single-payer bill with Bernie (https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/30/politics/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-single-payer-medicare/index.html), she says she's supportive of Medicare-for-all, she's open to other policy plans and proposals, etc. And yet ppl are still eager to paint her as not being sufficiently in support of massive healthcare reform. I mean wtf.

xp typically middle-class old people have Medicare as the primary payer and supplemental (private) insurance to cover gaps; both are used to pay for services from basically any healthcare provider

like, her past statements on incarceration are disqualifying, no matter what she says today! But her past statements and actions on healthcare are NOT relevant because she is currently saying the not-precisely-right things. yeah okay

xp

I'm already super stoked to read all the essays from left Twitter in November 2020 about how they're not voting for president because Kamala Harris is a disingenuous cop and anyway, it doesn't matter because they all live in NY and so she's gonna win their state anyway.

i can absolutely guarantee you now that i won’t be voting for kamala harris in 2020 or any other year

brooklynite leftist posters would die and go to heaven if they had even a modicum of the influence centrists seem to fear they do

you the real MVP

xpost

People listen to me jim

of course they do, that's how it works

Then.. why am I supposed to interpret "Medicare for All" as implying abolition of private insurance? I have not been reading it this way.

don't know that I'd vote for Harris in a primary, but against Trump in a general election i'd obv do so without hesitation. this shit is serious!

otm

Then.. why am I supposed to interpret "Medicare for All" as implying abolition of private insurance? I have not been reading it this way.

I don't know! it doesn't make sense to me either

don't know that I'd vote for Harris in a primary, but against Trump in a general election i'd obv do so without hesitation. this shit is serious!

a totally defensible position

I will vote for any democrat against donald trump

right, but Medicare-for-all is not really single-payer, since Medicare basically is a way of publicly financing the payment to private insurers afaict?

― Οὖτις, Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:41 PM (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

medicare does contract with private insurers to pay out some of its claims, something like one-third. this is a more recent trend with the advent of medicare advantage and part D...but it doesn’t have to be this way

https://www.kff.org/report-section/a-primer-on-medicare-how-does-medicare-pay-providers-in-traditional-medicare/

read up a few tweet to the top of this thread about the differences between the different m4a proposals tho, interesting topic

Right, a more accurate terminology would be something like "Enhanced Medicare for Everybody" and "Enhanced Medicare for Anybody." But now you've really got a mouthful.

— Jonathan Cohn (@CitizenCohn) January 30, 2019

I'm already super stoked to read all the essays from left Twitter in November 2020 about how they're not voting for president because Kamala Harris is a disingenuous cop and anyway, it doesn't matter because they all live in NY and so she's gonna win their state anyway.

― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:09 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

really useful post that many users benefited from, thanks

now can tell me why "fiscal realities" of medicare for all are a helpful talking point in 2019?

sorry realized I didn't answer this - it's really the *political* realities that Harris is taking into account, ie, what will actually pass the Senate (which is why she referenced other Democratic proposals). And the reality of that is that there are Democrats in the Senate who are, rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly), concerned about incurring huge amounts of debt for M4A, and they may have different plans in mind or concerns that will need to be addressed in order to get their votes.

But really if you want to look at what concrete policy proposal she supports re: M4A look at the bill she and Bernie co-sponsored in the Senate. Which has no hope of passage, obviously, but that's her starting point.

I think its weird that months before the first primary even happens there are already people telling critics of establishment candidates to “get in line,” even though itms not yet clear that these candidates are even the favorites ot the ones with the best shot at winning.

i think it’s weird that i don’t like that

brooklynite leftist posters would die and go to heaven

no thanks

I'm not telling anyone to get in line, but I don't like disingenuous arguments or arguments being made in bad faith or people taking up RW talking points that are specifically developed to sow discord within the party

grim lol xp

i mean, i'm just more interested in candidates whose priorities over their career are more aligned with mine than i am in people who believed other things

I'm already super stoked to read all the essays from left Twitter in November 2020 about how they're not voting for president because Kamala Harris is a disingenuous cop and anyway, it doesn't matter because they all live in NY and so she's gonna win their state anyway.

― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:09 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

really useful post that many users benefited from, thanks

― k3vin k., Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:24 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Harris is hardly my preference at this point, I'm just already so sick of this "disqualifying" bullshit in January of 2019.

debating candidates' histories and positions is not "discord," it is the process

if someone else had disseminated the Harris videos, it wouldn't change any of the substance

you have to be super deep in beltway gossip realpolitik hell to not realize why people want to support candidates they agree with and are less enthused about--for instance--a prosecutor

I get why leftists hate cops. I mean, I am a leftist that hates cops!

esp the SFPD ugh those assholes

what irritates me is the following equation, which is well in evidence around here already:

1) I hate cops
2) ergo I do not like this cop that is running for president
3) thus it is cool if I throw up any old bullshit that damages said cop running for president, regardless of its relevance, accuracy or veracity

it's step number 3 that is the problem

I’ll vote for the democrat in november always but until then I’m not going to think about strategizing. Nobody is able to talk about social issues outside the lens of this weird partisan lens. It’s like everyone is james carville now.

laughing about throwing parents in jail over truancy not nec "any old bullshit"

Oh i didn’t see 3. I saw people saying they didn’t trust her on healthcare bc, even though its good she supports m4a, there are things in her background that suggest it wouldn’t be a priority for her the way it would for a warren or a bernie.

BUT im at work and not reading the thread carefully