It's good discussion - and kind of shows that when both side put down the gloves, there is room in the middle to work together.
Thanks for taking the time to respond again!
I believe I talked about administrative burden in my initial point as well, but maybe I didn't. I just also realized I was going to be able to convince you on the point of maintaining steady work if your argument is "I know a guy who drives an Uber." That's not throwing shade; it's just acknowledging futility.
I don't really care how efficient the administration could be, I care about how efficient it is. If it doesn't save money (and I honestly don't know if it does), it's not worth it to me to burden both the state and recipients. It would be like drug testing for benefits; it's moronic and costs more money than it saves.
Keep in mind that this is being administered today, so it's not a net new increase in administrative costs. Trump's action literally just enforces existing rules. This rules are being administered and then the states are requesting exemptions. This eliminates the exemptions. I don't really see where the extra administrative cost comes from. If there's limited administrative cost, 20 hours is clearly reasonable (generous IMO), it discourages abuse, etc, then what's the downside?
What isn't helpful is when the media talks about the mean president ripping away food from poor people. This is an
existing rule that simply asks people to do
something in exchange for benefits.
I believe I agreed with this particular argument pretty well immediately. I was curious as to how you'd feel about changing SS to being better invested and to how that scenario would be meaningfully different than a mandatory savings account with government limited investment options (I acknowledge that it could eliminate some of the re-distributive effects but that's a bug and not a feature to me).
I think it would be better, but a private alternative still includes features that better investments don't solve. Primarily, being able to retain your principle and pass it to future generations to create wealth.
There would be nuances to that option as well. A % of the contribution would need to be allocated to a general pool to cover SS disability and death benefits for example.
Regardless, it's an overwhelmingly expensive program with very poor ROI for most participants. Any improvement would be welcomed, even if it's not an ideal state.
This is sort of begging the question. A lot of your political leaning seems to be tied to "taxes are bad." If our taxes went up but our premiums went down by
more, that's a good thing in my book. I've also always found the "smaller/more homogeneous" argument to be curious. More people should mean better economies of scale. Do you mean more sparsely populated? Canada pulls it off fine. What's the homogeneous thing about? That everyone is bigotted against people who are different so why should we bother helping them? Just musings.
Also, I'm quite amenable to the sorts of solutions Western Europe has; tightly regulated private insurances markets. Does that hold any appeal? Bluntly, I think it's naive to think an unregulated market will fix the problems we're currently facing.
I don't have any personal problem with people being able to pay more for better service. I do take exception to the fact that our current rationing system being driven purely by wealth.
I don't know, maybe that's true. Isn't it time for the rest of the world to pick up the slack?
You're not on firm ground at all, here.
It costs less per patient to administer Medicare than private insurance (article has nuance).
That's all well and good. For those of us who think healthcare actually needs to have some reform, though, the GOP is currently only offering to make things worse; not better. In a thread about "why vote Democrat", that's relevant.
I can't foresee a scenario in which public healthcare results in my premiums going down by more than my taxes go up. I don't think it's realistic at all.
I don't know all of the nuances of the various European programs. I will say that I wasn't opposed to the individual mandate, unlike many Republicans. I think everyone should be required to have health insurance just like car insurance. Because just like car insurance, I don't want to be on the hook when you have a problem - which is what happens with uninsured people. And I'm okay with some subsidies - provided those people work full-time, pay their share of taxes and control what they can to reduce their burden on the system.
Not sure I want to wait for the rest of the world to pick up the slack if it means a lower chance of a better procedure, cure, outcome, etc. for me or a member of my family.
I'm 100% on board with reducing administrative cost. We need reform. I don't deny that. And I said we need to start with cost reduction. Let's reduce administrative waste. Let's ensure people are accountable for their health (ex. you pay more if you smoke, don't take care of yourself, etc), which will drive down medical loss costs. Let's let free markets drive down costs (see the GoodRX thread for an example of how this is working for prescriptions).
Driving cost and waste out of the system should be a huge, huge priority.
The thread only included "Democratic Socialist," not Democrat. Because that's what you're supporting if Bernie wins. And it's pretty clear that even hard left Democrats on CNN, MSNBC and all sorts of other representatives of the party recognize that.
This is one of the aggravating things about the GOP. They can get elected, deliberately break stuff, and say "see, it's not working! Let's privatize EVERYTHING." Don't get me wrong, I know the bureaucracy isn't perfect or even good and I share some of your concerns. I even share some of your values but clearly not your priorities. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but you want a lot of the stuff we've talked about to get better but not it it requires you to sacrifice anything. I want things to get better and if I have to sacrifice some for it then so be it.
I don't think they deliberately break anything, but it is frustrating when there aren't productive solutions. Republicans had years to work on their vision of healthcare reform post ACA and when presented with the opportunity after Trump's election, they completely fumbled.
Thanks again for taking the time. I think I just got riled up when you said "Dems hurt my bottom line so why vote for them?" as though that logic should apply to everyone. The overwhelming majority of the left leaning people I'm friends with (selection bias, I know) would personally suffer if our dreams came true. Some stuff (like parental leave for everyone) is just a win for everyone and, from my perspective, beyond a no brainer. A lot of it though is because we want to be in a better place and we'll sacrifice to do it. Climate change, for example, simply won't be solved by "the market" until it's far too late. Some of our problems simply require massive solutions.
All the best!
I don't think it comes down to a willingness to sacrifice. I think giving the government more tax dollars to expand entitlement programs will lead to more problems, more government dependence and an unsustainable size and scope of the federal government.
I do think we see similar goals for the country. It's a shame that there isn't more moderate, reasonable discussion about how to get there. And while the subject of the thread was a bit tongue in cheek, it does seriously concern me that a significant percent of our country has drifted so far from the middle.
It makes any real discussion about how to improve healthcare difficult when one side wants to blow up the entire system. Same with immigration. There are reasonable, logical reforms to be had there. But open borders, free healthcare for illegals, etc. certainly isn't it. That's just not a reasonable position and it's hard to find a middle ground when one side is so extreme.
Good discussion. Hopefully Washington can embrace some civility and logic and actually do something that helps move us in the right direction.
