Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If Bernie attacks the democrats in any way this evening [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)158. Well, since you don't seem to understand much about what happened
as your insistence that "rich people wanted to kill it" indicates, here is an overview.
Two factors explain most of the decline in the plan's financial prospects. First, the anticipated federal revenues from Medicaid and the ACA declined dramatically. Second, Shumlin's policy choices significantly increased the total projected cost of Green Mountain Care: raising the actuarial value of coverage the expected portion of medical costs covered by a plan rather than by out-of-pocket spending from 87% to 94%, providing coverage to nonresidents working in Vermont, and eliminating current state taxes on medical providers.
Public disagreement over single payer was clear in an April 2014 survey showing 40% public support, 39% opposition, and 21% undecided.1 Though Shumlin's team had worked hard on policy development between 2011 and 2014, they had neglected to launch a serious and sustained effort to educate the public a crucial missed opportunity. Indecision was evident in the Vermont legislature, where strong support for single payer was hard to find. Also, the administration's disastrous launch of its ACA health insurance exchange website, Vermont Health Connect, created doubts about the state's capacity to assume management and administrative responsibilities for the entire health care system.
Asking the legislature to approve a new 11.5% payroll tax on employers and income taxes on households as high as 9.5% to finance Green Mountain Care would have increased the size of Vermont's 2015 state budget, set at $5.6 billion, by 45%. Even though the taxes would have replaced private insurance premiums that employers and individuals currently pay, and even though the Internal Revenue Service had agreed that the taxes would be federally deductible, in political terms it would have been a mammoth increase that would have been glaringly evident on every Vermonter's tax bill, unlike employer-based health insurance premiums, which most workers fail to notice. According to research in behavioral economics, people pay more attention to hypothetical losses than to hypothetical gains. The political furor that would certainly have erupted over Shumlin's tax plan as foreshadowed by the political uproar over the ACA would have left most Vermonters believing they would be losers. Shumlin's decision to withdraw the plan represented a failure of political will but sometimes making decisions because of likely political consequences is the necessary, albeit regrettable, thing to do.
Public disagreement over single payer was clear in an April 2014 survey showing 40% public support, 39% opposition, and 21% undecided.1 Though Shumlin's team had worked hard on policy development between 2011 and 2014, they had neglected to launch a serious and sustained effort to educate the public a crucial missed opportunity. Indecision was evident in the Vermont legislature, where strong support for single payer was hard to find. Also, the administration's disastrous launch of its ACA health insurance exchange website, Vermont Health Connect, created doubts about the state's capacity to assume management and administrative responsibilities for the entire health care system.
Asking the legislature to approve a new 11.5% payroll tax on employers and income taxes on households as high as 9.5% to finance Green Mountain Care would have increased the size of Vermont's 2015 state budget, set at $5.6 billion, by 45%. Even though the taxes would have replaced private insurance premiums that employers and individuals currently pay, and even though the Internal Revenue Service had agreed that the taxes would be federally deductible, in political terms it would have been a mammoth increase that would have been glaringly evident on every Vermonter's tax bill, unlike employer-based health insurance premiums, which most workers fail to notice. According to research in behavioral economics, people pay more attention to hypothetical losses than to hypothetical gains. The political furor that would certainly have erupted over Shumlin's tax plan as foreshadowed by the political uproar over the ACA would have left most Vermonters believing they would be losers. Shumlin's decision to withdraw the plan represented a failure of political will but sometimes making decisions because of likely political consequences is the necessary, albeit regrettable, thing to do.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1501050
"You do know that the taxes offset the out of pocket costs of insurance by a large degree right? "
You also keep repeating this as a mantra. But you have to show numbers, and you have to bring down costs in order to bring down out of pocket costs... It's much easier to keep costs low than to bring them down. So, you can't just point to other countries and say "See? That's what will happen when we do it!!!" when it won't.
You seem to think that moving the amount of money needed from one portion of the economy to another can simply be done via legislation. That's not how it works.
But you have made it clear that you will not accept any evidence to that effect - you will accuse the source as being "corporate!!" or otherwise wrong if they don't walk lockstep with Sanders. But, with hope that you might get a glimmer of what is actually involved..
But while a single-payer system would undoubtedly produce efficiencies, it would also bring huge disruptions. Said Starr, single-payer supporters havent worked through the consequences.
One of the biggest is exactly how to redistribute literally trillions of dollars. The problem, said Harold Pollack, a professor at the University of Chicago, is that the change will create losers as well as winners.
Precisely the thing that is a feature for single-payer proponents is a bug for everyone who provides goods and services for the medical economy, he said, since their profits and possibly their incomes could be cut.
And its not just the private insurance industry (which would effectively be put out of business) that could feel the impact to the bottom line. Parts of the health care industry that lawmakers want to help, like rural hospitals, could inadvertently get hurt, too. Many rural hospitals get paid so little by Medicare that they only survive on higher private insurance payments. Yet under single-payer, those payments would go away and some could not make it financially. You would not want to wipe out a third of the hospitals in Minnesota by accident, Pollack said. And you could, if payments to hospitals end up too low.
There are also questions about how feasible it would be to have the federal government run the entire health care system. Its hard to be nimble when a system gets that big, said Ezekiel Emanuel, a former health adviser in the Obama administration now at the University of Pennsylvania. No organization in the world does anything for 300 million people and does it efficiently.
The politics of Medicare which serves roughly 50 million Americans already make some things difficult or impossible, he said, pointing to a current fight in which doctors and patient advocacy groups blasted a proposal to move to a more cost-effective way to pay for cancer drugs. You already cant do certain things in Medicare because of the politicization, he said. When you cover the whole country, it would be a lot of gridlock.
Pollack agreed, and pointed out its not just the health care industry that could revolt. When the Affordable Care Act was rolled out in 2013, he said, the people who couldnt keep their old plans a very tiny number as a percent of Americans were furious. We saw how difficult that was and how angry the public was when that promise wasnt kept. Now imagine the major shift wed have to do to move to a single payer system.
One of the biggest is exactly how to redistribute literally trillions of dollars. The problem, said Harold Pollack, a professor at the University of Chicago, is that the change will create losers as well as winners.
Precisely the thing that is a feature for single-payer proponents is a bug for everyone who provides goods and services for the medical economy, he said, since their profits and possibly their incomes could be cut.
And its not just the private insurance industry (which would effectively be put out of business) that could feel the impact to the bottom line. Parts of the health care industry that lawmakers want to help, like rural hospitals, could inadvertently get hurt, too. Many rural hospitals get paid so little by Medicare that they only survive on higher private insurance payments. Yet under single-payer, those payments would go away and some could not make it financially. You would not want to wipe out a third of the hospitals in Minnesota by accident, Pollack said. And you could, if payments to hospitals end up too low.
There are also questions about how feasible it would be to have the federal government run the entire health care system. Its hard to be nimble when a system gets that big, said Ezekiel Emanuel, a former health adviser in the Obama administration now at the University of Pennsylvania. No organization in the world does anything for 300 million people and does it efficiently.
The politics of Medicare which serves roughly 50 million Americans already make some things difficult or impossible, he said, pointing to a current fight in which doctors and patient advocacy groups blasted a proposal to move to a more cost-effective way to pay for cancer drugs. You already cant do certain things in Medicare because of the politicization, he said. When you cover the whole country, it would be a lot of gridlock.
Pollack agreed, and pointed out its not just the health care industry that could revolt. When the Affordable Care Act was rolled out in 2013, he said, the people who couldnt keep their old plans a very tiny number as a percent of Americans were furious. We saw how difficult that was and how angry the public was when that promise wasnt kept. Now imagine the major shift wed have to do to move to a single payer system.
http://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
232 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I am vacation so I will probably miss it too. But I am sure I will hear about it.
boston bean
Sep 2017
#2
I hope she doesn't get the question about why Vermont doesn't have single payer...
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#13
hehe. You love love love that talking point. It doesn't make any sense at all, since Sanders is a
JCanete
Sep 2017
#22
They didn't do it at all. That isn't a failure of Medicare-for-All, it is a failure of the the
JCanete
Sep 2017
#24
The legislature is not the people, and they don't operate in a bubble that isn't affected by
JCanete
Sep 2017
#62
I disagree that pushing for actually progressive values hurts us in any way, but this site has a
JCanete
Sep 2017
#69
This is not about pushing progressive value...this is about giving the GOP cover to repeal the ACA.
Demsrule86
Sep 2017
#85
we've had that discussion. I don't get your point of view on this, even if I respect it. It does not
JCanete
Sep 2017
#86
It seems that the debate went well...I could not stand to watch...very nervous about repeal.
Demsrule86
Sep 2017
#125
It did seem to go well, thanks. I don't know what Graham and Cassidy were thinking trying to
JCanete
Sep 2017
#134
Defending the indefensible for sure...those two looked really stupid caught a couple of clip on TV
Demsrule86
Sep 2017
#196
meaning what? The republicans were successfully bludgeoning us on the ACA at the time
JCanete
Sep 2017
#70
LOL, so you speak with understanding and precision excusing Vermont politicians to
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#72
Sanders didn't shelve it in either state. Other politicians who were in a position to do so did.
JCanete
Sep 2017
#78
heheh what? Just at least admit that Sanders is not a State Senator. Also, note that I didn't
JCanete
Sep 2017
#87
Holy fuck you really don't understand how politics works. You really think people just need
JCanete
Sep 2017
#94
convincing the leadership to pass something is different than convincing the people that they want
JCanete
Sep 2017
#98
Then that means that Bernie as a leader couldn't get single payer implemented
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#100
The rich aren't willing to pay for it? No shit? No shit? wow. We could fund this you know.
JCanete
Sep 2017
#77
really? You aren't good at connecting dots. The rich have undue influence on our political landscape
JCanete
Sep 2017
#88
Bullshit it isn't why. The rich control the messaging. They can make a fucking idiotic wall popular
JCanete
Sep 2017
#92
You think national and international corporations have no power in Vermont? You think
JCanete
Sep 2017
#95
Straw man. Pointing out that something wasn't caused by the mechanations of the rich
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#152
I'm willing to have a focused conversation about deficits of legislation when you are willing to
JCanete
Sep 2017
#166
It was the taxes that were going to be levied to pay for Green Mountain Care that killed it.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#149
Actually, the wall is favored by 35% of Americans. And no, HRC didn't stop advocating
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#164
So the public voted on the bill directly? Why don't you explain to me how that went?
JCanete
Sep 2017
#153
what do I not understand about that? That all adds up to me. The representatives were afraid
JCanete
Sep 2017
#162
I'm glad we're on the same page with single-payer. What I have a passion for beyond the legislation
JCanete
Sep 2017
#168
And what is ideological purity? Who represents that? Advocating for what you believe in?
JCanete
Sep 2017
#175
Kind of ironic for people against "identity politics" to be so taken with a cult of identity with a
Ninsianna
Sep 2017
#185
Exactly, it is the single most valid question, recognized by people/journalists everywhere.
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#28
That's a red herring. Single payer only works if the entire country is enrolled.
Zen Democrat
Sep 2017
#74
This is truly absurd. You seem to love this diversion, but it's just an excuse.
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#26
This is not a difficult concept. And your excuses are nonsense. People everywhere can
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#34
people who want a reason to shut down discussion of single payer or medicare-for-all can grasp it.
JCanete
Sep 2017
#35
LOL, that didn't take long to hide behind "corporations" as some kind of excuse, too.
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#37
You trying to give your argument any kind of salience by referencing a corporate newspaper
JCanete
Sep 2017
#41
This isn't fooling anyone. It's just excuses. You are just hiding behind superficial
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#42
Lets fucking find out. Do you want to stand in the way of it and just poo poo any efforts to
JCanete
Sep 2017
#44
So commenting on it without cheerleading is standing in the way of it? Or "barring the way"
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#147
what are you talking about? Since I'm literally the person that was being responded to,
JCanete
Sep 2017
#198
just snorting about something doesn't make it not true. Its hardly a conspiracy theory to say money
JCanete
Sep 2017
#204
that is fucking daft. Did you pay attention to election coverage? Trump had no business
JCanete
Sep 2017
#209
I never questioned whether Russia has attempted to influence the election. Do you think the MSM
JCanete
Sep 2017
#211
oh the msm just hates women. It didn't hate Kerry or Obama or Gore...It didn't
JCanete
Sep 2017
#213
right...cuz I've ever seen you deviate even slightly from yours. I'll give you this, you never take
JCanete
Sep 2017
#215
that's pretty wild. Why don't you read through our history of exchanges and see if you can really
JCanete
Sep 2017
#217
there is no such thing as no bias. When they try they are faking it. I'd rather they be honest about
JCanete
Sep 2017
#197
There is such a thing as journalism, and integrity, but if you prefer propagnada
Ninsianna
Sep 2017
#199
There is such thing as credibility. Papers and News stations(with some obvious exceptions) are
JCanete
Sep 2017
#206
Indeed there is, we've seen that many of the sites people here favor because it
Ninsianna
Sep 2017
#218
No. That's ridiculous. How can you control how your bias affects your coverage if you aren't aware
JCanete
Sep 2017
#219
No, what's ridiculous is that confirmation bias as already been admitted to,
Ninsianna
Sep 2017
#223
You are making assumptions you have no evidence for. You have single-handedly decided that
JCanete
Sep 2017
#224
I thought you said that people in government only do what rich people tell them to.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#163
do you really think there's a contradiction here? The only thing that speaks as loud, or at least
JCanete
Sep 2017
#165
More excuses, really, at least by the standards already set by the Revolution. nt
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#52
"National" health insurance works when an entire country is covered, not individual states.
Zen Democrat
Sep 2017
#73
When he avoids questions about what was learned from Single Payer in his home state
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#148
Actually, we need a lot longer than four years to avoid disruption to health care delivery
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#160
Well, to some his very existence as a non-Democrat in the Senate is an attack on the party.
aikoaiko
Sep 2017
#6
There aren't many that could do this right but of course CNN would go with Sanders.
ucrdem
Sep 2017
#18
Nope, you are intentionally misstating the facts. Anyone can run. You don't need a party.
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#230
And if people choose to run outside of a party we never hear the end of it.
redgreenandblue
Nov 2017
#231
That is demonstrably untrue. We heard about Ralph Nader and we heard about Jill Stein
stevenleser
Nov 2017
#232
Putting right in quotation marks doesn't answer the question of why not.
Cuthbert Allgood
Sep 2017
#140
Preach. They already have an exaggerated sense of self importance and need to get over themselves.
bettyellen
Sep 2017
#61
Sometimes tough love is needed. It's a damn shame he left the party, but after the way
joet67
Sep 2017
#40
Sorry... smears lies and insults (no matter who delivers them) are not "tough love"...
NurseJackie
Sep 2017
#49
If "tough love" results in losing the debate and helping millions lose their health insurance
pnwmom
Sep 2017
#81
I will be keeping my expectations very low... so as not to be disappointed. Also...
NurseJackie
Sep 2017
#43
I absolutely disagree -- I hope Amy Klobuchar stays and makes the issue the real choice before us
karynnj
Sep 2017
#50
One can protect the ACA while also working to replace it with a better plan. eom
guillaumeb
Sep 2017
#54
Not in a debate. He can't disparage the ACA and defend it from attackers at the same time. n/t
pnwmom
Sep 2017
#82
I have my fainting couch prepared, I don't know how i will manage to go on if he does. nt
m-lekktor
Sep 2017
#83
This wins the internets for shedding bitter tears while shark jumping on a political message board.
Voltaire2
Sep 2017
#109
Hey! how are you doing? I know it's hard to put up with politicians and people you disagree with
Autumn
Sep 2017
#115
I know that you don't like spending a lot of time on Senators from small Northeastern states.
Autumn
Sep 2017
#118
The major 'kick' seems to have been the pause between #110 and #111
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2017
#138
Glad to hear it. I think Amy and Bernie did a fine job of defending access to health care.
aikoaiko
Sep 2017
#141
Must have gone well? Seemed to have neutered the Republicans for a little while.
Sunlei
Sep 2017
#182
Yes, this misuse is hilarious when you consider the Reagan Democrats by definition
R B Garr
Sep 2017
#203