I assume there will be fewer jobs for people to answer phones and miscommunicate information to and from health care providers and patients. There are a lot of those jobs right now.
Seriously, any job loss is no joke. But I don’t think you want to keep a shitty system alive forever just because it breeds a lot of paperwork.
This more or less describes my current position at my current employer, though >.>
Well heck, I spent 8 years being paid to promote shitty webgame content and downloadable hidden object games, so … … …
(it actually wasn’t all shitty! I genuinely liked the Nitrome stuff, plus Dino Run and Kingsroad)
Agreed, wholeheartedly
Tammy Baldwin puts her name on the Medicare for all bill.
Significance? She’s the first senator from a state Trump carried to add his or her name to the bill.
I would expect that some portion of that 30% would be spent on an increased payroll tax to help subsidize the “Medicare For All” style system. As you say, we can pretty much bank on the fact that there is no way that money is going to somehow end up in the paychecks of employees, so it can either come back in the form of employer paid taxes to help pay for the system, or it’s all going to go to C-level compensation and bonuses.
You possess an overabundance of optimism if that seems like an open question in this day and age :P
And that was my biggest draw to Bernie. Our healthcare system is fucked. There is no half-way winning state. Single Payer or bust, and bust is approaching rapidly.
Add Franken to the list now.
I’m going to need to see more than just adding their name to a token bill. It is EXTREMELY possible this could just be a situation where someone puts their name on a popular bill that they know won’t pass because it is safe.
The old guard has been extremely resistant to any changes. The suspicion that they are just trying to give mouth service for votes is strong.
Really though, this is what the DNC establishment never understood. Bernie is extremely charismatic and sincere, but it wasn’t a cult of personality like certain other campaigns. It was about his policies, for both him and his supporters. The DNC never could understand this. Why doesn’t bernie care about big money donors? Why doesn’t Bernie care about how much money he can make from speeches and lobbying after leaving office? Why doesn’t Bernie care about his legacy? Why doesn’t Bernie care about having an impressive sounding title? They never could understand any of that stuff because they were speaking a different language.
I imagine there’s some of that – this bill is obviously a dead-ender – but there’s something to be said that the Senators signing on are planting their flags on the idea that this is a net-gain political calculus.
I used to watch tennis. I played it as well, but relative to other sports it just wasn’t my strong suit; I had a nasty backhand plus a decent serve, but I just didn’t have the speed and endurance needed to handle the volleys back and forth. But I did really appreciate one player named Michael Chang. He was the absolute master of the volley back in his day. Each swing wasn’t calculated to score but to rather set up his opponent for when a score was finally within reach. That’s how I see this bill - it’s not going to pass. Heck, even if it magically did, I’m pretty sure that Trump would veto. However, if enough people sign on then it sets the tone for the conversation - a starting point that doesn’t have people panicking about single payer and calling it fringe. It just becomes a discussion and something within the realm of possibility in the future.
Murbella is basically the guy who goes to Pawnee town forums and tries to get everyone chanting goofy non sequiturs…
Exactly. You and Adam have it pegged, and it’s important.
Gay marriage was a non-starter in 2004. It may have even cost Democrats in some races. But a whole lot (not all) signed on to either that or civil unions, and now it’s a thing with like 65-75% popular support. I think single payer is like that, but maybe a longer row to hoe. Still, if you can get some on board with just saying “universal healthcare” and others with “single payer” eventually you start to move the needle enough.
Although I do support single payer as one path to universal coverage and health care pricing reform, it’s not the only path. I think some on the left are using “single payer” to mean “universal coverage”. Single payer is a fairly narrowly defined method of getting to universal coverage and I think if we narrow our methods down too much it becomes harder to achieve the goals, which are universal coverage and health care pricing reform.
I understand the frustration of the left with “half-measures” like Obamacare, but there ways to buff up Obamacare to make it a true universal system and there are also ways to use the exchanges to enact a gradual transition to single payer or to multipayer with a robust public option.
I don’t think we should tie ourselves to a single method.
The real goals are universal coverage and health care pricing reform; single payer is just one means to those ends.
I mean another (lesser, but still neat) goal is the annihilation of the private insurance industry :)
Okay, well, 90% of it. The richest of the rich can keep buying $2,000/mo private packages for their biannual dick replacements.
I’ll save you guys some time:
packages
hehe
Sorry to be that guy, but the word you want is “rally.” “Volley” refers to net play, at which Chang was no master.
Pelosi refused to endorse it.
LOL - fair enough