Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
As a very strong supporter of M 4 A I think your logic is entirely correct.
As good a policy as it may be (though one can disagree) it's just not good politics, as you say people like their healthcare so unless something majorly disruptive happens and sours them entirely on the current healthcare system it just isn't going to become viable.
Which is unfortunate but I'd rather a flawed form of universal healthcare that has a role for private insurance than nothing at all, it's a bitter pill to swallow but such is life.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 17th 2019 at 5:23:36 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWho are these mythical people who love their private insurance? I’m sincerely asking, cause I don’t distinctly remember each private insurer I’ve had, I just remember they sucked, and it’s been much easier being on the Medicaid expansion as a broke law student. Lots of people are very sour on the current system of jumping through 80 hoops to get things covered.
Edited by wisewillow on Aug 17th 2019 at 5:33:43 AM
I think it's weird too but most Americans positively rate their insurance
, I guess the internet magnifies the voices of the people either idealogically opposed to private insurance or who are currently unhappy about their insurance.
I don't want to be a defeatist, but I don't think convincing them on the viability of replacing their insurance with M 4 A is something that's really realistic.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Mythical, really? There a ton of them out there, just mostly of progressive-leaning forums like this and your personal contacts, it seems. Otherwise, Medicare for All that want it wouldn't be massively more popular than the original idea, as of the moment.
Edited by Grafite on Aug 17th 2019 at 1:41:51 PM
Life is unfair...Because as someone who (to the surprise of exactly no one) frequents a lot of actually progressive(-leaning) forums, I can tell you that OTC is not one of them.
The thread is definitely progressive-leaning/progressive, I'm not sure about OT as a whole but it's possible that you're left-wing enough that your definition of progressive is a tad limited.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI think it’d be more accurate to say that so many people are OK with their private insurance because they don’t understand all the problems it causes, nor do they know there’s a fundamentally better system possible.
My musician pageI see.
That's fair enough.
The question, in that case, is, can we realistically convince enough of them to make M 4 A viable?
I am not a defeatist by nature and I support Warren because we dearly need boldness to reshape the US's flawed society but I am unconvinced of the odds of such an undertaking.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 17th 2019 at 6:49:13 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYes, people strongly support universal healthcare but it would be a mistake to conflate that with M 4 A.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang>OTC: In my experience at least, OTC straddles a weird thin line overall in the hazy middle between the Center-Left and the Left. Part of that is because it actually has a rather scattered set of viewpoints (on this thread alone you have Socialists, Progressive Democrats, Other Democrats, and a handful of Centerists, Conservatives, and Libertarians, etc [also these are not all mutually exclusive, but I digress]). Moreover, what the dominant narrative or position is on any given thread can vary based even on who is awake or online at the time. That's how, simultaneously, one can end up with interpretations like "OTC leans Progressive", "OTC does not lean Progressive", "OTC is an echo chamber", and "OTC argues constantly, it is not" at the same time.
>M 4 A: We'll have to see what happens. I suspect that even if (say) Warren is elected, she is going to have to contend with congress for whatever healthcare reforms are passed. Whatever my personal hopes and dreams are aside, I won't be surprised if that happens.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 17th 2019 at 10:22:13 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerAnd whether any healthcare reform will be passed. Bluntly speaking, climate change and government reform is a far more important challenge than yet another healthcare reform, other than "mini fixes" for particular problems that don't amount to a wholesale reform.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI personally think we should focus on driving down medical costs. I like the idea of universal healthcare but the emphasis on who should pay your bills strikes me as a bit flawed.
SCENARIO: It costs six bajillion dollars to get checked for the flu. Who should foot the bill?
- Your private medical insurance company should pay most of the six bajillion dollars. If you don't have private medical insurance, I guess you're covering it yourself.
- The government should foot the bill for the six bajillion dollars if you don't have private medical insurance.
- The government should just always pay the six bajillion dollars.
That, to me, has always been what the debate around healthcare sounds like. Meanwhile, I'm over here going, "Wait, why the f*ck does it cost six bajillion dollars?"
I have medical insurance through my employer and I'm still terrified to go to the doctor, because even after insurance covers their portion, I'm still going to be on the hook for a life-destroying amount of money. Had my appendix taken out so I didn't die once. That was two years ago. I'm still trying to find a way to pay for that.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 17th 2019 at 8:55:04 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.With private insurance being something you pay for,maybe the reason people are happy with it is that they assume free healthcare would mean they're worse off,since if you pay for something it means you generally get a service or product of good quality
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverThe reason that is emphasized is that there are important structural differences between who pays the bills which have a direct impact on the quality of the healthcare system and its outcomes, so it absolutely shouldn't be puzzling that supporters of the various plans consider it to be a highly relevant point of contention.
Universal healthcare is good but not equally good.
The evidence is fairly clear that M4A is superior.
To quote the relevant bits:
So far, Sanders has not adopted a specific set of “pay-fors” for his Medicare for All program, but has instead offered up lists of funding options. Although he has remained open on the specifics of funding Medicare for All, the overall Sanders vision is pretty clear: cut overall health spending while also redistributing health spending up the ladder so that the majority of families pay less for health care than they do now.
And this plan is plausible: The right-wing Mercatus Center found in 2018 that the Sanders plan reduces overall health spending by $2 trillion in the first 10 years. The nonpartisan Rand Corporation has constructed a similar single-payer plan, with pay-fors, for New York State that would result in health-care savings for all family income-groups below 1,000 percent of the poverty line ($276,100 for a family of four).
While Sanders’s support for Medicare for All helps promote his image as a supporter of universal social programs, Warren’s support for it helps boost her brand as a smart technocrat who understands good policy design. As Paul Krugman noted in 2007, a single-payer Medicare for All system is “simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient” than the “complicated, indirect” health-care system we have now. In general, single-payer systems are beloved by the wonk set because they are the most direct and cost-effective way to provide universal health insurance to a population.
So in a couple of news bits today...
Domestically, an Arkansas woman was arrested for holding 4 teenaged black boys at gunpoint when they approached her home
, thinking they were going to stage a home invasion. They were doing fundraising for the football team. She's now charged with 4 counts of aggravated assault, false imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a minor, and the school is reevaluating their fundraising practices after this incident.
Internationally, the US has issued a warrant for the seizure of an Iranian tanker that's currently in Gibraltar
, on the grounds that it's associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, which we've designated as a Terrorist organization.
She had better be goddamn convicted.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

That's also being discussed in the LGBT Rights and America thread.
So, I wanted to get feedback on a theory I have regarding Medicare For All. I was thinking that the only way that Medicare For All can happen in 2020-2021 is if the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA before the 2020 election, because:
Thoughts? I am not personally fond of M4A for several reasons but if it will happen, then IMO only after this sequence of events.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Aug 17th 2019 at 1:58:56 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman