Calif. Lawmakers Want to Abolish Private Health Insurance Market
shailynn
They never tell you what you need to know.
Calif. Lawmakers Want to Abolish Private Health Insurance Market
http://newser.com/s315555
Once again something that in “theory” sounds like a great idea but in reality would be a disaster. Don’t believe me? Go talk to my relatives in England.
http://newser.com/s315555
Once again something that in “theory” sounds like a great idea but in reality would be a disaster. Don’t believe me? Go talk to my relatives in England.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
156 comments
Everyone loves single payer, until they see the bill.
It's failed in California, Colorado, and Vermont.
That being said, it’s California, so if there’s any state where this might pass, it’s likely in the land of the liberals.
The true cost is likely much higher if it ever gets moved along. But, there is also far too much bureaucratic waste attached to it, which pumps the price up.
Hopefully it passes. Newsom has other beneficial reforms as well such as health care for undocumented Americans
The people in England and the other industrialized nations enjoy 5 years more of life expectancy, a much lower rate of premature deaths because they better contain chronic conditions, lower infant mortality, and much lower costs.
It is an illusion that government and the health care system are not already managing your health care right now. You just are not getting that much of a benefit from this because it is still being done for profit and by creating a two tier society.
SJG
Jennifer Fischer
https://jenniferfisherjewelry.com/collec…
Peter Frampton - Do You Feel Like We Do (Live in Detroit)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCWaWFm…
Thank You Mr. Churchill / Peter Frampton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNMmX5w…
San Jose Guy, go break your ankle or require some minor surgery in England and see how you feel about their medical system then. On paper again it’s a great idea but in reality it’s nowhere near as smooth as it seems.
And the people of the UK have access to the ballot box. What they have is what they have continued to affirm.
And Muddy, if we didn't have a legal system which allows the well of to ride on the backs of those who do the low paying, no benefits, dead end jobs, the those who put such workers down would have to take one of those kinds of jobs themselves.
SJG
SJG
https://jenniferfisherjewelry.com/collec…
Frampton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCWaWFm…
Problem with American proposals (like Sanders and Warren) is that they get to "universal care" by assuming already-overworked HCPs are going to accept a 25-40% reduction in pay, but make it up by treating more patients. It isn't a serious proposal. A chimp could tell you that won't work.
SJG
Our cost curves diverged from Europe's in the 70s. We can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
If you have links to articles which say something else, I would be interested to see.
The Hillary Clinton '93 would have gotten us all of this with no out of pocket costs, no tax hikes, and no increase in costs to employers except for those large employers which offer no benefits like Fast Food and Walmarts.
But, her plan was very complex and so it was easy for the Health Insurance Industry to run Thelma and Louise Ads to caricature it.
The reason we have deviated from the other industrialized nations is our history of racism, influencing the vote tally in the congress. Otherwise the Clinton Plan would have passed, as also could have a more progressive version of the Obama Plan. In Massachusetts, the Mitt Romney (R) plan, did pass.
SJG
Jazz Messengers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3vpiTgG…
Jennifer Fischer
https://jenniferfisherjewelry.com/collec…
I dunno what insurance you guys have you love so much. Or if you're all just skating out on whatever hospital bills you have...
I'm ready to see someone finally put an end to this fucking madness.
435 Members of Congress and 100 Senators have Socialized Medicine, and you don't hear them complaining about it.
SJG
Longevity is a poor measure of a healthcare system. It covers too many non-healthcare sociological factors. A better measure is 5-year survival rates for treatable cancers, 30-day survival for severe events like heart attacks and strokes, where the US does pretty damn well (for those who are adequately treated).
Access is a different story, and that's where we have problems. Part of it is insurance related, and part of it distribution related (i.e. few hospitals or doctors in certain regions--we're a lot more geographically diffuse than our Western European comparators)
I'd love to see your link on how the Clinton plan would have gotten so much care for so little. Someone always pays for it. There are many different plans out there that mistakenly get lumped together as "single payer." The UK and German systems are extremely different from one another in who are government employees, how it gets funded, etc. I hear good things about the Singaporean system which routinely gets great metrics, but don't know it in great detail.
Similarly, blaming "racism" has some truth but isn't the whole truth. Countries with high homogeneity (like Scandinavia) have high social cohesion (i.e. willingness to spend on one another). The US hasn't been very cohesive in the best of times, and we're a hell of a lot more divided now than we were even 10 years ago. There's also a rugged individualism in America. I forget where I read this, but someone said Americans identify a class or two above what they are. Like, even the poor view themselves as millionaires in distress, rather than the downtrodden.
Obama came into the presidency with huge majorities, and passed only a skinnied-down version of the ACA that Republicans have been taking bites out of since. Biden labors under the delusion that he could pass big legislation with threadbare majorities.
Put all that together, along with the formidable power of the industry, and I don't think we're getting a single payer system any time soon.
The Clinton plan won by bringing people to regular physicians, instead of to the emergency room. Better care, lower costs.
This cost reduction covered bringing more people in, and then some.
Small employers would get big tax credits.
Med employers, usually offering some benefits already, would get med tax credits.
Large employers already had good benefits which they could drop.
The only people who would feel any new costs would be the large shit job employers, like fast food and Walmarts.
Clinton came in with a mandate and a 52 seat Senate Majority. But he was attacked viscously and the filibuster was used like never before. He got his budget passed, but health care would have to wait for Obama.
I knew Biden would have a very hard time.
SJG
Private hospitals in the US are on the verge of rationing care due to covid.
Claiming universal access to care and a focus on preventive care hurts society is idiotic.
Maybe if legal prostitution was attached to a universal health care bill you'd support it
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/…
Rick I guess you think no health care means more desperate women to fuck you for cash.
So who is this mythical population you are referring to?
~ twentyfive, TUSCL, August 27, 2020
~ Lockn down the stripper you wanted/ and being a whiney little bitch
Just let yourself be ignorant of what's been done to you...”
~ From: Save the Rich Lyrics
~ Garfunkel & Oates
Then educate me by answering my question. Who is the mythical population of people here in the U.S. who you think doesn't have access to preventative care?
I’m with 623 and bkk on this one. I used to work in a pharmacy, and 💯% agree private health insurance is a dumpster fire. And VA, Medicare, Medicaid, tricare, workers comp is WAY less of a dumpster fire and despite my political beliefs, that is one area where having the government touch it already does healthcare better. And that opinion comes from running however many thousands of people’s insurance.
Though the documentation and other minor stuff like returning medication to the shelf dates can be a bit more annoying on the pharmacy end as far as remembering to comply properly—that’s not the patient’s problem. It’s at least less time consuming than getting the patient to call their insurance for some stupid issue, or if god forbid there is actually enough staff that corporate allowed to be scheduled that particular day, then we would be calling on their behalf instead.
I remember talking to pharmacists once who were older, and they talked about how much more affordable things were back in the day when people had to pay out of pocket and submit claims to their insurance after the fact. I can believe that. And that would probably be better but no idea how that system could ever return.
—
Also, some of us make too much for Medicaid, but would certainly feel the squeeze if we tried to get insurance. To qualify for Medicaid in Colorado, I’d have to reduce my income to $14,856/yr. I consider myself a minimalist but I need to make more than that to enjoy my life. And I refuse to seek out insurance on the open marketplace and pay $300+ a month and have to deal with a 10k deductible AND have to read a tome ahead of time to know to stop a doctor from trying to prescribe or do xyz because it’s not going to be covered. Eff that🖕
It’s even worse now than I remember back when I was in school, paying out $180/month, and dealing with a crappy company who couldn’t even be bothered to send out my card for prescription information. I had to get the information from calling them directly, and persisting through the snotty attitude that somebody had to take time out of their day to read the info for me.
I pay out of pocket for blood tests and yearly women’s health screenings at Planned Parenthood, and go the functional/natural medicine route on most things, and while what I spend isn’t cheap, there is actual value that comes from that at least.
There is also always the back of the mind lack of security of what would happen if there was a true emergency that required major medical care, which is followed up with also understanding it would probably be cheaper to negotiate a bill when uninsured vs getting denied on something for some stupid reason and being told they won’t work with you on your bill because you have insurance (that has happened to some individuals before)
If you really believe that then you are vastly and inconceivably ignorant. For all its many flaws, our healthcare system is the envy of much of the world. People routinely fly here from other countries to get treatment, often because they would have to wait too long to be treated otherwise and/or they cannot get the proper treatment in their home countries.
What CA is proposing will firebomb its healthcare system. Many doctors will leave the state. CA will have to ration care both because it will have a limited supply of qualified providers and to control runaway costs. Much like wealthier Canadians now do, affluent Californians will travel to other U.S. states for routine care, timely tests and treatments, etc.
As far as your insurance premiums and deductibles, you can thank Obama for that by forcing every single individual policy to cover things like pregnancies and mental health treatment. But it's not like you can't get coverage, but instead you just don't think that it's worth it. That's your call.
Also a young person paying $300 per month should be able to find a policy that waives deductibles for preventative care. You just have to behave like a grown adult and learn to read the Summary of Benefits that accompanies each policy to find the one that is the best fit. As far as the rest of that rambling nonsense, hogwash. Yes I have also had to push back on denied claims (especially fucking Aetna), but often one push using the online portal is enough.
Over the years there have been rational solutions offered but the amount of corruption and theft built into the system causes it to fail over and over, I have no faith that any single payer would ever act as a fiduciary, that would leave a system with zero checks and balances.
Maybe Saudi princes who also book out the entire floor of the Waldorf for their security detail for the stay....
Many do visit India, Thailand, etc. As great as you claim Americuh is, best hospital I ever visited was in Bangkok, on vacation, and cost me less than $100
Even many Americans go to Mexico for dental work.
https://www.magazine.medicaltourism.com/…
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/indust…
Now yes, there are also Americans that travel out of the country for medical tourism, but that is for cost reasons, not because of quality issues, dangerously long wait times or outright denials of care from their home healthcare system due to rationing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_…
Obamacare is a clusterfuck, and did more padding of individuals who needed to be padded than anything else for reasons that is way more than just an increased scope of things like mental healthcare.
And I’d be all for more a la carte and there not being stuff like pregnancies on health insurance plans *IF* it was possible for people to actually be able to do things like comparison shop the cost of basic things like delivering a baby. I remember watching a video years ago where a man just for kicks recorded himself actually calling several hospitals asking about how much it would be to deliver. Several refused to answer him and there was anger that came his way.
There is no “free market” currently except in the complementary alternative medicine field. (And as far as I’m concerned, way better for anything related to preventative care anyways)
Fun fact, not too long ago hospitals having to post prices because mandatory recently, but not much has changed because major hospital systems just openly defy those laws and so far there hasn’t been anyone to come up and actually show enough leadership to actually enforce anything.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/hospita…
—>“Also a young person paying $300 per month should be able to find a policy that waives deductibles for preventative care. You just have to behave like a grown adult and learn to read the Summary of Benefits that accompanies each policy to find the one that is the best fit. As far as the rest of that rambling nonsense, hogwash. “
Thanks to the deliberate lack of transparency, the summary can’t be trusted to be comprehensive enough. And from what little I have looked into, nope not worth it.
Mexico has a government run healthcare system for people who are on-the-books employees (a much smaller percentage of people than in the US). I have relatives who use it, has worked good for them, at least for routine stuff, like gall bladder removal. But, if you need a medicine that's still under patent, they basically tell you to go home and die. Seems harsh to us. But Mexicans are more into enjoying life in the now, rather than making themselves broke by worrying about what may happen in the future. They overdo it, but the happy medium I think is somewhere between us and them.
Skibum609 posted "My wife is in the nurse's Union and works at a hospital. Union health plans are amazing."
So these types of plans should be the model for a plan which covers every American.
And now to relate to our OP, of course there will not then be people selling private health insurance, as the insurance market is regulated, providers are licensed, and so such so called private health insurance would fraud.
SJG
Louie Bellson & His Big Band 1983 Lew Soloff, Randy Brecker, Michael Brecker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWJFvJoR…
Frampton w/ Rob Arthur on his Nord 88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5PgG4ak…
Frampton and Clapton, While My Guitar Gently Weeps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1ijcpo1…
GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC42CJoB…
Led Zeppelin: Live on TV BYEN/Danmarks Radio [Full Performance]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-WSbMW7…
Led Zeppelin - No Quarter Live 1973 best audio mix, John Paul Jones on keyboard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFZy4ot2…
SJG
The Sanders and Warren plans rely on HCPs accepting 40% and 25% pay cuts per visit (respectively). That will never happen.
I'll accept a single payer plan that is fiscally responsible. But even blue states California and Vermont, and blue-purple Colorado have shot down single payer plans by huge margins when faced with the bill.
There are different single payer models, but everything I hear in the US is idealistic nonsense.
And of course any plan we pursue has to be fiscally responsible.
The cost of government based entitlement plans is only in that portion of the plan which siphons up to rich people. And it is only to get this money back that you need to raise taxes on the wealthy. And you only need to raise them to the extent that it gets that money back.
If you give money to poor people, where does it go? It gets spent, and it gets taxed every time. This is how the government has money to make the next payments. It only does not get spent when it gets into the hands of rich people. Then it gets used to inflate the securities and real estate markets. So to get this money back into circulation and not have the working poor being used to fatten the fat, you need to raise taxes on upper incomes. If they are not being fattened, then they won't have to pay any increased tax. But as it works, just like in a game of Monopoly, the rich are rich because they have continuing ways of tapping into the cash flow throughout our society.
So called giving the poor money, is not really giving them money, not money to keep. It is just giving them some of the product of your society, like health care, or like say housing, food, clothing, and education. They spend the money, they don't hoard it. They can't afford to.
It is the well offs, pumping money into real estate and securities that are hoarding money. And they do this by riding on the backs of working people.
Skibum609 has endorsed the Union Health Care plans.
Skibum609 posted "My wife is in the nurse's Union and works at a hospital. Union health plans are amazing."
So these then should be the model of the pubic health care plan which finally brings the United States out of the Third World and into the First World.
And I guess a prototype for this might be the plan installed by Mitt Romney (R) of Massachusetts.
SJG
GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC42CJoB…
That's why I suggested the French system, with baseline care provided by the government and private plans for people who want deluxe treatment. But there are many models out there. I can't speak to Skibum's wife.
Regardless of payer, there's a lot more we can do right now. Increase funding for residency slots. Subsidies for doctors who practice in underserved locations. Reform hospital payments and upcoding and all the loopholes they use to build massive facilities. Price transparency. Allow physician assistants and nurse practitioners to treat more patients.
I think both parties are more interested in using the issue to gin up their base than in solutions. Ronald Reagan once said there is no limit to what can get done, if you don't care who gets the credit.
My sister called me all excited that she was getting this "potential life-saving test" and it just made me upset that the doctors would so blatant in their abuse of the Medicare system. After she passed, I saw all the tests that were ordered that didn't seem to match what she had. The doctors just ran up her bill since it was allowed and the hospitals just get a fraction of list price for all the care she was given under Medicare.
Otherwise you have the Convenience Store Workers, the Uber Drivers, the Finance Sector Officer Workers, the Health Care Workers, the School Teachers, the Police, the Fire Fighters, the Farmers, the Factory Workers, the Tech Sector Workers, and a whole lot more being squeezed to fatten the fat.
Well I suppose their could be supplemental plans, just so long as they are not categorized as insurance. We had these Medi-Gap plans. You get sick and we pay you money. That kind of stuff, just so long as it is not structured like insurance. You could have a contract which sends strippers to you hospital room.
And yes we can increase funding for medical education and residencies, and for doctors serving in underserved locations. These would all do a great service to our nation and they would take pressure off the junk job sector.
The Hillary Clinton '93 plan included agreements with medical schools to graduate more GP's instead of so many specialists. And it did have provisions to increase doctor coverage in underserved areas. And it created the category of Nurse Practitioners.
The Hillary Clinton Plan was so good that there would be no tax increases and the only people who would feel a cost increase would be those large employers with no benefits, like Walmarts and Fast Food.
The Hillary Clinton Plan was so good that the Private Health Insurance Industry fought against it like their very existence depended on defeating it, because it did. So 48 Republican Senators turned to the Filibuster and used it like it had never been used before in our nation's history.
"Ronald Reagan once said there is no limit to what can get done, if you don't care who gets the credit."
And yes, for once I am in agreement with Ronald Reagan.
SJG
GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC42CJoB…
I think also there was some problem with the doctors communicating to your mom and you about what they were doing and why, and what could be expected.
SJG
LOL Clinton might run in 2024.
I'm against free college. For most people, college is not only a debt trap but a waste of time. We need more plumbers and electricians, not gender studies majors. The value of a college degree has gone way down since everyone had one.
I might be one of the last remaining deficit hawks. I thought the Trump tax breaks were an ass-brained attempt to buy votes. A buddy of mine got $1,000 from his company and acted like it was $1,000,000.
Without continuing care, people are not really getting what they need. Doctor's office is much cheaper than a full hospital.
So this is how the Hillary plan could cover more people but still not cost anymore money. And this is how it is working in the other industrialized countries. Longer life expectancy, less premature deaths, lower rates on the big chronic conditions, less impact from COVID, lower infant mortality, and less costs.
Tetradon, this Two Tier French system. Got any links on that? Are you saying that this is how it is now, or is this just something which is being considered?
Maybe this is Emmanuel Macron at his best?
I don't think they can do it that way.
Remember Donald Trump is someone who had gone on record saying that we need Single Payer European kind of Universal Health Care. But then when he got elected in 2016 and sworn in, his party, largely led by Paul Ryan, announced their intents to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
So people said that you have to confront these Republican Senators f2f.
So they asked this Tom Cotton of Arkansas, "He why is your health care more important than mine".
Republicans tried two times to repeal Obama Care, but it failed in the Senate. Then the thrid time they did nothing except to reduce taxes on corporations and on high incomes. And yes that wasw reckless and irresponsible, and just an attempt to buy votes.
Health care is not a cruise ship, it is about keeping people healthy, keeping people alive, and sometimes about giving them a place to die in dignity. I don't think you could have two tiers, and especially not in France. Not in the US either.
But usually this is what the Right wants to do.
Well we have a surplus of all goods and services. So while we still need plumbers and electricians, we also need people with critical thinking skills.
Your talking about that Pat McCroy in North Carolina. He doesn't like Gender Studies, and he listens to Art Pope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wXXWiW_…
Day Tripper - MonaLisa Twins (The Beatles Cover)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_2umIzu…
It is a common misconception that preventative care reduces costs. Oregon did an experiment with Medicaid where some people randomly got it, and found that ER utilization actually INCREASED (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upsho…) because it's more convenient. It could increase quality, but it isn't a solution on spending.
There's a misconception on the left that we can get all the revenue we want by taxing the rich. Other people's money is always a big seller, but there aren't enough rich, and there aren't enough corporations. Particularly when money is more mobile and apt to change jurisdictions than ever.
Our Congressfuckers get better everything than the rest of us. Health care, pensions, ability to insider-trade stocks. Different rules for the rich have been around as long as there have been rich.
I consider myself a conservative, but healthcare isn't a left/right thing to me. It's my field, I have chronic conditions for which I've worked the system (and taught sick friends/family how to work it), and ultimately I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. I see bullshit reasoning all the time. The problem is, simple slogans ("healthcare for all," "if you like your doctor," "don't let them take away your healthcare") sell better than nuanced solutions. That's why I say "show me a system that works." Believe me, I have no love for insurers or PBMs and their rent-seeking behavior, but you're fooling yourself if you think civil servants are objective and benevolent. From Jan 20 2017 to Jan 20 2021, you would have had healthcare CEO Donald Trump (as head of the executive branch).
People miss that HCPs operate according to the laws of economics. Pay them more, you'll get more of them. Pay them less, they'll quit the field. On the demand side, there's a lot more discretion than you think. As long as that's the case, we'll never have "equality" in the healthcare system, no more than we can have "equality" of yachts or food.
Oh, and GOP doesn't want to repeal Obamacare, because we've worked out the initial kinks and it's the status quo. Disrupting that is never popular. I was against it when it was being debated, but wouldn't repeal it now. They had House/Senate/WH and wouldn't repeal it, even when they could have nuked the filibuster and done so. They want to fundraise off of it.
The data from the other industrialized countries show that Universal Single Payer does work.
I'll look for supportive data.
Thanks,
SJG
If we want to tame costs, we'll have to selectively prune the system and blunt the increase over time.
What data there is is that continuing care cuts down on use of the most expensive care, the emergency room.
And what money is paid recirculates and gets taxed back so it can be paid out again. Expanding health care expands the economy for all working people. We only need to raise taxes to get back that portion which siphons up to rich people and gets used to inflate the securities and real estate markets.
SJG
SJG
Actually I just posted data saying insurance does NOT cut ER rates. Only way it could do so is if we added significant copays (i.e. not Medicaid).
https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/public…
This seems to be a subscription service, to see the full paper.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/agibrownlee
SJG
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article…
SJG
Why 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit' will only work with brands that 'prove they are creating change for women'
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/sports-i…
Weather Report - Live at Montreux (1976) [Remastered]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvfXA2S…
The Lancet has long since fallen into advocacy rather than science.
And some see advocacy as part of the role of health care professionals.
SJG
The issue is on the back burner, since Biden can't pass anything right now. It only lives as part of the insane "Green New Deal," a progressive dog's breakfast that even my leftist friends admit is poorly thought out. Doubly so with inflation, as we can't print money to pay them.
Like I said, show me a proposal where the math works. Still waiting.
SJG
Why 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit' will only work with brands that 'prove they are creating change for women'
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/sports-i…
Weather Report - Live at Montreux (1976) [Remastered]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvfXA2S…
Leftist think tanks are not reliable sources.
These people have tap roots which siphon up from all transactions. So if you don't want to be fattening the fat, then you have to have these high income and large portfolio tax hikes.
The American Medical Association was against LBJ's original medicare plan because it called for board established fees. So to get them on board, LBJ agreed to customary fees, which means anything.
So today though the AMA has accepted that there will be cost controls in the form of board established fees.
SJG
Why 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit' will only work with brands that 'prove they are creating change for women'
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/sports-i…
Weather Report - Live at Montreux (1976) [Remastered]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvfXA2S…
There aren't enough large incomes and portfolios to do this. Ignoring the dubious constitutionality of a wealth tax and the mobility of capital, Europe has given up on it as it's scared away capital and not generated the revenue one would expect. Income taxes would filter down to at least the middle class.
Employer premiums are remarkably regressive, costing the same for anyone from the admin to the CEO. But there aren't a lot of CEOs in a company.
There are universal systems that could work (true "single payer" doesn't exist) but M4A is not one of them.
I don't have time to read this now, but will soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare…
As of 2019, Singaporeans have the world's longest life expectancy, 84.8 years at birth. Women can expect to live an average of 87.6 years with 75.8 years in good health, and men with a life expectancy at 81.9 years with 72.5 years in good health.
"
Singapore is a rich country, but so is the United States. You measure wealth in what Buckminster Fuller called "Life Support", like food, shelter, clothing, education, transportation, and health care. You don't measure it in dollars because that is completely arbitrary.
SJG
Yes, there are a lot of things we need to do.
And some of it is spelled out in the Green New Deal.
SJG
There is no appetite for large-scale social change. Committed progressives are only 8% of the population.
Come up with one viable bipartisan proposal, pass it, and execute it soundly.
Things have gone easier in other industrialized countries because they are not governed by racism.
SJG
Our universal health care here in the U.S. involves things like legally requiring hospital emergency rooms to accept all patients. In many cases, these patients could be treated in less expensive ways like at a dentist office. More money could also be spent on preventive care instead of waiting until someone gets really sick. Remember Ben Franklin's saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
Racism is a lazy excuse. Have you seen how black people are treated in Europe, where they enter the soccer pitch to monkey noises? Or Russia or China? But you hit on one point, and that is social cohesion. Societies with universal health care are homogeneous, with a high level of cultural and social cohesion and a willingness to spend on one another. Ours was never that high, and now it's lower than at any point in my lifetime.
I'd advise you not to take policy advice from AOC. Manchin was right, she's a twitter phenomenon, not a serious thinker.
Tetradon, you are insulting low wage workers. Why is your health care more important than theirs?
AOC is one of the most inspiring thinkers to enter the congress.
This social cohesion you talk about was always at the expense of minorities and other low wage and marginalized people.
SJG
LOL AOC as a "thinker." Such thoughts as that anyone who rips on her for not wearing a mask at a Miami restaurant must secretly want to fuck her. What major legislation has she sponsored? She's a stupid twitter brat, and they're a dime a dozen.
You're missing the point on social cohesion. It's not whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's that without it, UHC will never get passed. Our best hope to end racism is we all interbreed and become brownish exotic mixes. (As part of the browning of America, I think it's awesome!)
We will have greater homogeneity when we have a more just and inclusive society.
Ending slavery, school integration, '64 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Today, and Universal Health Care. Also free college and college debt forgiveness.
SJG
I cut my teeth at AMPs, and at Strip Clubs.
SJG
We're pretty just and inclusive right now. We have a sizable group (the Democratic party) with a vested interest in racial strife, so they dig their fingers into the wound whenever they can. The "racist" accusation is losing steam as it's been overused.
Free college and debt forgiveness are a dumb idea. You were of legal age and entered into a contract. With the number of graduates in useless programs, it doesn't benefit society either. It's a way to buy millennial votes, nothing more. It makes as much sense as forgiving mortgage debt, or car loans.
But some of those are really for business expenses, which an employee does not have. But they have tightened many of them up. But many real estate related things are still there.
We used to have a more cohesive society because of things like the GI Bill, and then adequate funding for public colleges to keep fees low. And then Financial Aid being grants instead of loans. But Reagan changed all that. We want people in college. It is a social contract, part of what our society has to offer.
Robert Reich says that we should not think of college as job training, but for building maturity. I agree fully. As job training it will always be too little and out of date. But people need to have maturity, awareness, and political consciousness for the duties of citizenship, like voting.
We never should have gone to college loans. Wipe the debt clean and make college free.
SJG
I disagree that we want people in college. There is no social contract for an extended "education." A high school education used to prepare students intellectually in a way that few universities even do today. Moreover, it's the subsidization of higher education that have driven expenses skyward faster than even healthcare. If it is not preparing students for a post-college life, it has no benefit to society. University waterparks and layers of diversity administrators add nothing--we didn't have that in your golden days either.
Robert Reich is not living in reality. 4 years of partying and studying a pre-barista major build less maturity than 4 years of apprenticeship to be an plumber or welder, and more beneficial to society. MIT, which very few can get into, posts its course materials on the internet. So do many other colleges. We're living in a glut of information. If you want to "build maturity" intellectually, you can study on your own. Do we want to tell kids that 4 years of assing off is more useful than hard work in a useful trade?
Higher education is the biggest bubble in America. It needs to get popped.
Social contract is that if you go thru post secondary education, you will reap benefit. That contract has been seriously abrogated.
College forces you to develop maturity, in the classes and in the reading and writing assignments.
But I am all for popping the cost bubble.
FWIW, My Org, for our people, will deliver life long supervised indendent study
SJG
I don't know where in any social contract there is the right to post-secondary education. And like I said, plenty better and less expensive areas to develop maturity.
Where I would agree for subsidizing post-secondary education is in areas with an economic return on investment. If it's being subsidized with taxpayer money, it should pay off in the same. Things like nursing degrees, trade education, "upskilling" and "reskilling." You can study Arthurian Literature* in your spare time.
* One of my most memorable undergrad courses. But I got a great university aid package.
"You don't pop the cost bubble until you stop subsidizing it."
I agree with you, the costs are insane, and they keep rising. But you do understand that if the public colleges are declared to be free and they can't charge tuition, then they will have to live within a budget, just like the Dept of Street Repair does.
"I don't know where in any social contract there is the right to post-secondary education."
There hasn't been any right to a post-secondary education. But there has been an implied social contract that if you undertake and complete a post-secondary education, then you will get a big benefit. I think this really started with the GI Bill for the WWII veterans. But that was driven by the Pay Equalization Act (Bonus Army) for the WWI veterans. This contract has been abrogated. And then as we have gone from Financial Aid, to Loans, and Loans which cannot even be discharged by the medieval custom of bankruptcy, it has turned into a system which exploits the youth and forces them out of the above ground economy.
"And like I said, plenty better and less expensive areas to develop maturity."
About this we may finally be reaching some common ground. I will say more about this later, but I don't think work experience and post-secondary education should be made oppositional. But in fact they often are.
When I first joined TUSCL, it was right after the Elliot Rodger 2014 Isla Vista Spree Shooting, directly adjacent to UC Santa Barbara. I was really dumbfounded by this. Rodger wrote a manifesto which I in no way agree with, but I do feel his pain. It is just that he is misassigning the source of his pain in going along with these misogynist voices.
Because of the elite college enrollment, he was being denied adult status. He was still being seen as an adolescent.
Now let me explain what I mean by elite college. I am largely being guided by this, and by their previous book:
https://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Markets-…
An elite college is one which is hard to get into, demanding to stay in, and it is one where the vast majority of students are being financially supported by their parents. For the most part, high school grades and college entrance exam scores correlate to how much money the parents have. Seems mostly cause by social status.
So here in CA we have UC, CSU, and Community Colleges. Now UC is the hardest to get into, and it has the most graduate students, and the most doctoral students. But it also has the lowest average age of students. Due to the level of academic demand, and the social class of the parents, the vast majority of UC students do not even have part time employment.
At CSU the average age of students is higher. And it is also generally assumed that students have at least part time employment. People who have transferred from CSU to UC have explained this to me. It effects how things are scheduled.
And then at Community Colleges the average age and the work experience levels are even higher.
I think this is all wrong. It is about replicating social class, and not about education.
So a few days after the Elliot Rodger incident, I just happened to meet someone who was a counselor of students at CSU Fresno. I told him that I thought that if Elliot Rodger had been a CSU student instead of a UC student, things would have gone completely different for him. As a full time student he was looked at as immature. And he was immature. And then the student body on the whole was an upper middle-class monoculture. Now just by the income level of the parents, Rodger was also at this strata, if not higher. But this does not mean that he was of the normative type or that he really could ever have been at home.
I would later suggest, suppose Rodger was going to CSU San Francisco. He might also be in an artists collective, and he might had have part time employment. I don't see Rodger as a welder, but I could see him as a waiter in a pizza place. Groups of young girls would be going there just to flirt with him. And he could do poetry slams, or become a film maker like his father.
So I am not saying that employment is necessary to impart the work ethic. I am saying that employment broadens one's horizons and it is one of the ways in which one gains maturity and social standing. People will seek it when they are ready for it, so long as the road is not blocked.
We shouldn't set it up so that higher education and employment are at odds with each other. This is a legacy of our class system, where only the children of the wealthy would get higher education.
I will have more to say about this.
"Where I would agree for subsidizing post-secondary education is in areas with an economic return on investment."
Even if every student is studying to be a Facebook Software Engineer, or a Harvard trained Brain Surgeon, this does not mean that our society needs that. In fact, our society pays huge costs for keeping the Work Ethic Squirrel Cage going. And I think more and more people are recognizing that college does not give you a career. If you want a career, you need to build it yourself.
So if people want to learn about Gender Studies or Art History, that is not any more of a drain on our society's resources than anything else. Rather, it is a big plus because it expands people's thinking.
"If it's being subsidized with taxpayer money, it should pay off in the same. Things like nursing degrees, trade education, "upskilling" and "reskilling." You can study Arthurian Literature* in your spare time."
So nursing degrees and trade education do not necessarily pay off in any way more than anything else. Those fields which do have a reliable demand and offer high wages do already draw lots of students, usually more than can ever be employed in those fields.
"* One of my most memorable undergrad courses. But I got a great university aid package."
And so studying Arthurian Literature does help to build maturity, because you are making a careful choice and following thru with it. You are pursing what has meaning for you.
And today that great university aid has been replaced by predatory bankruptcy exempted loans.
No matter how long people stay in school, or what they are learning when they are there, that does not mean that there will be employment for them when they get out, because the demand is finite. And the vast majority of college graduates end up doing things which are more bureaucratic than things which actually use their hard earned skills. I think a lot of incoming students see this, and so they wisely steer away from things which are narrowly presented as job training, and instead look for a more liberal education. What they have of a career will be something they have to build on their own.
Elliot Rodger
https://tuscl.net/discussion.php?id=6064…
And then conventional college is inadequate anyway. The world keeps changing. What is done in college now is rarely up to date anyways. People need more depth and more breadth. The only way to get this is a life long education, and this has to be self-directed independent studies.
Gray Brechin is a local historian who teaches at UC Berkeley. He has written about how even the publicly funded colleges serve to increase the wealth gap.
https://graybrechin.net/
I am building an organization and everyone in it will be getting a life long self directed and supervised education. But they will also have other duties. These duties might be things done within the organization or its enterprises. Or it could be outside. Especially for the younger people this could be things like grounds keeping and gardening, building trades (welding), auto repair, factory work, and kitchen work. Especially for the younger people these would be things most definitely blue collar. But they might also be in groups discussing Plato, or they might be learning the Mathematics of General Relativity. They will have daily balance.
Now this will just be for our own self selected group. You could not impose this on the general population. But I definitely want to break down the wall between blue collar and white. Everyone will be gaining hands on skills, and theoretical skills, and language, arts, and critical thinking skills. We will not charge extra money for this. And we would never stand by and watch anyone incur debt or draw down a nest egg for this. We will make it work out on an as you go basis. But it also won't cost the org much to deliver either.
Are Traditional Colleges and Universities Bad Environments?
https://tuscl.net/discussion.php?id=5066…
SJG
PETER FRAMPTON [ DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE DO ] LIVE 1995 (Frampton was born 1950) w/ Bob Mayo on keyboards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfiDIcGO…
“But there has been an implied social contract that if you undertake and complete a post-secondary education, then you will get a big benefit.”
That’s the fault of those inferring the existence of that “social contract.” It doesn’t exist. Back in the days of the GI Bill, something like 5% actually went to college. It was rare and valuable. Now, degrees are plentiful, and with increased quantity comes decreased value.
If we cancelled student debt, we would create a giant moral hazard for both universities (who will increase tuition with impunity) and students (who will not pay back debts knowing all they need is a politician’s ear). By default, the costs get passed on via inflation, which is regressive.
Regarding a mixed study/employment arrangement, I’d need to learn more (and don’t have a ton of time to respond right now). I went to an “uber elite” college, and had both a good financial aid package and parents who picked up the rest. There were a lot of rich kid legacies, and they had a parallel education, one of easy classes and weekends together at posh resorts and jobs at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs despite having the IQ of a potted fern.
The push away from standardized tests is faulty—a GPA from one school does not equal a GPA from another, and it’s the only thing that puts all students on an equal ground. Without it, universities are free to discriminate however they choose, whether by race, or whether daddy plunked down enough money for a building or endowed chair.
“So if people want to learn about Gender Studies or Art History, that is not any more of a drain on our society's resources than anything else. Rather, it is a big plus because it expands people's thinking”
“Expanding people’s thinking” is not worth $250,000 a year. Especially when it’s a major that turns one against society and one’s fellow man. Personally I’d have less problem funding any course of study if it made them deep thinkers, along the lines of a “great books” curriculum. In fact, people from such curricula have outperformed Yale students in the job market. But for every one who pursues something rigorous, you have a hundred slackers who don’t develop critical thinking skills. Perhaps it’s more about the person than the course of study.
To summarize, there is no right to party for 4 years on the taxpayer nickel. I would want to be sure that we’re graduating deep thinkers with moral depth, not baristas who think the world owes them something because of their piece of paper.
I studied a hard science in undergrad. While the science has changed in the 20 years since I graduated, I retained the ability to learn science, read a scientific paper, and analyze scientific data. I keep up by reading an assload of materials in my field.
TL;DR: I’m fine with paying for ACTUAL deep thinkers, but they’re rare.
The Dept of Street Repair does not have access to the printing press. Publicly funded universities don't either.
Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump darn near broke the printing press. I think it was all done very foolishly.
Universities could compete on price. Sure it is possible to operate on a very low budget. In the Organization I am building things will run at a very low price. And then you can today educate yourself at a very low price. Spending money to keep people in college is a good use of money. It takes pressure of the full time jobs market, and it makes for more jobs in the schools.
"Back in the days of the GI Bill, something like 5% actually went to college. It was rare and valuable. Now, degrees are plentiful, and with increased quantity comes decreased value."
I don't know the actual numbers, but it was considered a very successful program. In part this was because the average age of the students was higher.
I look at this more in the societal and personal value or the education. Degrees are incidental.
Cancelling student debt is simply an admission that we were wrong. We want to boost these young people. For the most part they are of modest means. Otherwise they would have paid back.
Many do not have multi-generational economics backing them. All they face is a predatory lending system, and they are being conned.
Well, high school GPA and standardized test scores are mostly cultural measures, of how rich your parents are.
Nothing is worth $250,000 a year. UC and CSU do not cost anything close to that. And what My Org does will cost less than 1% of that, but that is just for our own self select group.
Learning things which encourage critical thinking are very valuable. We need this, not just more sheep.
https://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Sheep-M…
Well, people who want to learn, more than to have fun with their parents money, will keep their partying in moderation. In My Org there will not be any mood altering chemicals.
And our society does have a debt to every person as a birth right.
Life long learning is essential and we all need this. I say that preparing people for this is the real reason for college, and that it is worth paying the pubic cost, and the costs of good health care.
SJG
Stanley Clarke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW7a1rTI…
GEORGE FEST - Norah Jones - SOMETHING @ Fonda 09-28-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC42CJoB…
http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/e…
SJG
There’s a way to educate yourself cheaply now. It’s called public libraries and the internet.
The GI bill was successful, but now degrees are a dime a dozen. Soon it’ll be like business schools, where you’re going to a top 10 or you might as well be lighting your money on fire.
Not all things of value need to be provided by the government. The societal value of a degree, for most people, is minimal. College degrees are used as a qualification for jobs that don’t require them because it’s a lazy way to weed people out. The best secretaries I’ve known have hustle and people skills; those take no talent. Most people aren’t learning “critical thinking,” they’re graduating underprepared. Those without means have Pell Grants and scholarships.
GPA and standardized test scores are the best metrics we have of intelligence and ability to handle the academic workload. If universities eliminate standardized tests (we just heard about Harvard doing this), they’re going to admit more legacies. They used to use “soft factors” to admit fewer Jews.
The student, of legal age, entered into a legal contract. Can the government forgive mortgages and car loans, too? Those can rip people off. It would create a huge moral hazard to forgive college debt. In reality, it’s Democrats paying off one of their constituencies. It would cause tuitions to keep increasing, and the crippling debt comes from private schools. We’ve seen what happens when we oversubsidize something, we get price increases untethered to economics.
I remember the days of the "coalition of the ascendant" and the "emerging Democratic majority" which the left has waited for like a cargo cult. But that's the great thing about no-stakes predictions, you're never WRONG, only right too early, lol.
And be quiet when the adults are talking.
The left has predicted they'll take over the world for a century now. It hasn't happened, or they wouldn't bitch about being stymied at every turn.
I do think that more government involvement is usually bad tho. A lot of times the intentions are good but maybe there is corruption and greasing of palms somewhere and shit gets more fucked up than the previous version of w/e.
I've been studying healthcare and health sciences since Icey sucked on his mom's titties. I love discussing and arguing it. This discussion goes far deeper than "left" and "right," except for partisan idiots who need AOC or Trump to tell them what to think.
Where it matters, progressives are just bitching about their inability to get shit accomplished.
Progressives are getting frustrated at every turn. Suggest you read a little
And it does not net a bigger deficit, because the money recirculates. Only need to raise taxes to get back that which gets siphoned up to the rich.
About home mortgages and car loans, if we go to a UBI system will the assumption be that people will own cars. This was how Frances Fox-Piven explained it.
I would say that now the answer is no. Public housing towers on rail mass transit. So cars and houses are for people who can afford them, no need to subsume the loans.
SJG
If the government pays for it, it nets a deficit. The money goes to college administrators and professors, while they pawn off the work on poorly paid adjuncts. Only way I'd be on board is if it became an expanded version of say, Pell Grants, with a focus on high-potential youth that couldn't afford it. Otherwise we need to get kids into trades and the like.
Yes, we need affordable housing, which means going against politically-powerful NIMBYs, almost always rich white coastal progressives. Same reason we don't have offshore wind farms. They love poor people in the abstract, provided they live a 2 hour commute away. When I lived in Connecticut, there were people in my building that commuted 3 hours each way every day to Lower Manhattan, because they couldn't afford anything closer.
Public transit is great in geographically-tight metro areas like the Northeast. Not economical in most other places.
"Government is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."
- Frederic Bastiat
It isn't necessarily full time studies. But even if it were, taking pressure of the jobs market for 4 years would be wonderful.
Money recirculates, this is a basic Keynesian insight.
Affordable housing, like a strong public housing offering, built on the rail public transit lines.
But we still look to the government to keep the rich rich and happy, and to keep the poor down with cops courts and prisons.
SJG
Money given to rich people does not recirculate, you just said it. Look at the Harvard annual endowment, for one. Universities are rich.
There aren't enough public rail lines in which to build affordable housing. It's going to decrease rich people's property values; they will fight it tooth and nail.
The justice system is a whole other matter entirely. Yes, it keeps the poor down with a maze of difficult and poorly explained regulations, and fines/prison terms for disobedience. It recirculates them into the system. We need to go back to rehabilitation, since most of them will come out at some point.
And I don't worry about degrees, I look to the actual education, and this is best an ongoing process. In most situations it needn't cost that much.
If someone wants to study, we should support it. With a Universal Basic Income system everyone's basic needs will always be provided for. Whether or not someone is in the work force will be entirely up to them.
Because of automation and information technology, as Jeremy Rifkin explains, the relation of leisure to work time has reversed. No one is forced to have paid employment, except by our completely outdated ethics. The cost to our society of keeping the Work Ethic Squirrel Cage going is far higher than any other proposals on the table.
It's like Buckminster Fuller said, Because of advanced industrial technology we now have the capability of taking care of every single person better than even royalty lived in past centuries. The only reason we don't see this is that we still expect everyone to prove that they can earn a living.
Rich people don't have any right or means to fight public housing development. Most urban areas have some rail public transit. We sure do.
https://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_sj…
This is the idea that comes from Europe, the Urban Transit Village. You take about 10 to 40 acres and excavate about 6 stories down. This will be automobile parking and the train station, and all weather foot traveling. Want to get it within 600' from the front door to train. You have all services, including a college, on the lower levels. And these are not just for residents, they are for anyone. Then residential on the top floors.
This is done in lieu of rent controls. You just compete the slum lords out of business. I tis a material paradise on earth.
Anyone can live there, not just the poorest of the poor.
Build this at a steady rate. Construction, maintenance and operation will be some of the best jobs around.
This way we do not depend on the criminal justice system to keep people in line. And I am involved in advocacy for some wrongfully convicted and serving life.
Capitalism has not worked since the 1870's.
Want to replace all needs tested programs with universal benefit programs.
SJG
Weather Report Heavy Weather (Complete Album)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlee09qm…
TJ Street
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/9620…
A degree is the symbol of the education. There is no right to another’s resources, nor a right not to work. Not sure where you’re getting that from, it sounds like an unsupported opinion.
“This is the idea that comes from Europe, the Urban Transit Village.”
Super. Neat idea. Now find the funding for it, considering we’re already running huge debt, capital is mobile, and interest rates are increasing. It’s a pipe dream.
“Capitalism has not worked since the 1870's.”
Actually since then, it’s moved more people out of extreme poverty than ever. “Inequality” is the cry of the envious. The old joke of “whatever you get, your neighbor gets twice over.”
We have public transit experts at SJSU, and Urban Transit Village is the way. Need to get people out of their cars and use less energy for transportation. Bicycles even better than electric trains.
Capitalism is just a way of enforcing slavery without calling it that. Productivity and standards of living have skyrocketed. This is because of Industrial and Information Technology. If we can abandon the Squirrel Cage, then we will all see the benefit.
What was supposed to have been an End of Cold War Dividend, got squandered in creating a class of financializes. These can be dealt with via progressive taxation. This were our money is getting wasted.
SJG
SJG
What does ‘Medicare for all’ mean for California health care workers? What experts say, 2/1/22
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health…
SJG
Joni Mitchell- Amelia live 1983
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N7gPcCg…
1979 w/ historic video and w/ Pat Metheny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxMwGTQ1…
Asian Cat Eye Makeup
https://www.herworld.com/beauty/youtube-…
Stockton Fire Fighter Fatally Shot while putting out a dumpster fire.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/firefighter-c…
Why should Icey get off paying nothing?
Wait - THIS IS ALL A SCAM - if guys have to pay dues, then SJG is pocketing that money. Th anti-capitalist has enraged everything he preaches against. How ironic? Should all this be free?
And no, we don't even talk with imbeciles like Shailynn.
SJG
SJG
"Supporters claimed the scheme was an ultimate money-saver because it dismantled the private insurance market, eliminating premiums and deductibles. Anybody who believes that fantasy should steer clear of emails mentioning a Nigerian prince."
The reason private health insurance has to be abolished is because it would be fraud. This came out in the debate over the '93 Clinton Plan.
Thanks for the article.
SJG
Actually this is not true. Some interventions can be, though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upsho…
http://www.walkboston.org/sites/default/…
I have no love for private insurers, based on both personal and professional experiences, but there is no reason to believe wiping them out would be some panacea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgeDYz27…
SJG