I don't mind your suggestion. Begin with regulating the insurance industry along a Swiss model (I'd have to check that out but afaik all EU models are better than the US, re insurance). Then in a decade (if you pass that legislation) you can pivot to something like UH.
The US Democratic Party - The Road to 2026 and 2028
- Thread starter rio's upper lip
- Start date
This is not true. A recession results in higher suicide rates, higher substance (inc alcohol) abuse, poorer mental health outcomes and direct death from poverty itself as well as, funnily enough worse health outcomes.
This has been observed in practically all if not most developed nations
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61910-2/fulltext
https://www.marshmclennan.com/insig.../january/recessions-health-repercussions.html
I don't think you believe providing all US citizens with free healthcare would result in a recession.
You're also not taking into consideration all the other variables.
Private pension funds will collapse, Banks will go bust, adjacent businesses will go under - there will be chaos. You're talking about wiping off almost 20% of a countries GDP sector and reinventing it overnight. There's a reason why "revolution" always results in tragedy one way or another.
Can you actually read my post properly please. If you go full single payer UH overnight, without any care or mechanisms to alleviate the huge damage such a radical shift will cause, then yes a short-medium term recession will occur. Nobody has provided those mechanisms or solutions (yet).
Unless someone actually comes up with a substantial plan on how to mitigate that, I'd rather stick to an phased rollout.
I'm not an economist, but I believe that if the most powerful man in the world wanted to provide free healthcare for his citizens, he would be able to put together a team that could take all that into account and make it work.
You will not convince me that it's anything other than lack of political will that keeps this from being a reality.
Oh and the revolution in my country worked out pretty well.
You keep repeating overnight... Experts would be in charge, not random caf members.
I agree with your broader point (the inherent inefficiencies of market/competitive healthcare are subsidising a large number of jobs and so a large part of the economy) ...
but you aren't wiping off 20% of GDP overnight.
The number of doctors, nurses, cleaning and catering staff, ambulance drivers etc should be unaffected. The number of administrators will be reduced slightly. The number of billing staff will be reduced drastically. And a large part of insurance jobs will go away, with some absorption in the govt bureacracy (who will need some billing specialists and some acturial predictions).
There are actually calculations of what savings this would result in, and from memory it was about 10-15% of healthcare spending, so about 2-3% of GDP. Which is a lot! But a lot more manageable than 20%. And there are plans for managing the transition to efficiency, like increasing eligibility in a stepwise way based on age, wage subsidies for a year, etc.
Yet we've had on and off discussions about how implementing UH Single payer would work, including multiple politicians running for president off that, and nobody has yet to publish a whitepaper on how this could (would) be done.
There are loads of NGO's, consultancies etc all vying on this topic and I've yet to see a single actual in depth bill, solution or proposal that would work.
California, New Hampshire and Maine all Vermont all tried it. They gave up because the cost was too high (not just tax increase but the damage it would do to the states economy).
California alone would have racked up a yearly bill of 450 billion USD, more than double the states budget.
To be clear, my point was never that there would be a 20% recession, but that reshifting 20% of GDP of a nation overnight is going to cause catastrophic pain.
The problem isn't just about jobs either, it's about all the pensions that are invested in the healthcare companies, including 401ks, all the banks that are giving lines of credit to the Health companies - which overnight will see them lose atleast 2/3rds of their customer base. It would be a trigger that could start a credit crunch of sorts.
Ah yes, just what we need, a military coup.
He said all revolutions end in tragedy. In my country it ended the tragedy.
And yeah, you better hope when the fascists take over the army will be on the side of the people to restore democracy.
Is it also even a revolution when the guys with the monopoly of violence are the ones forcibly enacting change?
Yes.
To be honest, Carnations where the Army collectively decided that their dictator was a moron and they all had enough wasn't quite what I was thinking of when I was saying "revolutions" but, eh.
my point is that you're not even shifting 20% of GDP.
as mentioned, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, will remain unchanged, and at least for a while, pharma will be untouched. that's the vast bulk of the 20% that won't change at all.
the reduction and rearrangement is mostly within insurance companies and hospital billing departments.
Nah, we’re cooked over here. Maybe we survive the next 4 years and emerge as our usual dysfunctional democracy or not. Just sorry we’re likely going to take the rest of the west with us.
The MFA only had about 10% of support inside the army before the revolution.
Who is this idiot?
Ultimate centrist dumbass, and also rabid Zionist.
Would be interesting to know what these people think the center is
And the 55%, feck em right?
I'm not a Marxist but Marx has this one - this generation - summed up perfectly through his notions of superstructure (what is being said) and base (the economic actuality or what people, in material practice, everyday do and where that practice must lead). There's so much "quacking" and so little actual effort expended on doing truthful economic things. This must lead to massive disorder. The social-contract has been broken. That post-War social contract. It is dead. With that, the death of the economic system which runs ahead of itself by virtue of running on "gas" when the primary force is still, as always, the people; and the people, for at least 15 or more years in the West, have been fecked over one government after another.
If they cannot actually implement meaningful housing, healthcare, and education reforms (the fascistic educational meddling by both the Dems, see Gaza, and the GOP, see everything) will only cause a schism. They will make enemies of the most educated within their own societies: far more enemies than allies. It is self-immolation across two continents.
Of course they all move right (they've been at it for years) even though it was Sanders and Corbyn, floating actual change, economically, who won enormous popular support. This was with the establishments firmly set against them: their own parties effectively ousted each even though Sanders is still there as a quantum-Democrat. If you forget the two people who put it forward, but rememember the vast support it had/has, how can you justify just becoming that you are allegedly against?
Someone in that link posted crosstabs, and the largest gap is for income. Poorer people were the ones most likely to want Dems to be more liberal and least likely to want them to be more moderate.
People across the world have lost any concept of labour economics it seems. Left vs Right politics these days is based on feelings, not outcomes.
It's pretty easy when you talk to and hear dozens of these people.
Generally, the Trump message about the pendulum swinging too far on immigration and DEI is what they mean when pressed to explain their claim about the Dems moving "too far to the left". It has nothing to do with economics. It's pretty much the only two issues that Trump hammered over the last 2 years - immigration and DEI. Oh and also, a sprinkling of trans rights because some people believe that Harris would have been giving out hundreds of gender transition surgeries to prisoners. But those are the two primary and one secondary issue.
Harsh on dumbo
When you count the 3 figures for the Democrats it doesn't add up to 100%. I see no 4th option though.
It says right on the graphic that "those with no opinion are not shown"
How would the Democrats become more moderate? Except perhaps by becoming more left wing?
At the moment they can't do much more than let trump be his chaotic self. The thing they need to get their head around is prep for the next election. They need a candidate (and heaven forbid policies) that people can get behind like they did with Obama. feck knows who that might be.
Suggestions on a postcard to ...
At the moment they can't do much more than let trump be his chaotic self. The thing they need to get their head around is prep for the next election. They need a candidate (and heaven forbid policies) that people can get behind like they did with Obama. feck knows who that might be.
Suggestions on a postcard to ...
A pollster on CNN said that people (including many democrats) are liking what they have seen what Trump has been doing so far such as taking quick actions on Immigration, cutting down the government budgets etc. They would like him to be a bit less rude out front but they like his actions. Funny. So where would the Dems go? It will be interesting.
The fact that so many people worldwide enjoy seeing their own governments budgets being cut and have bought in to this idea that governments are inherently bad with money, while private corporations are supposed to be so good with it, really gets me angry. There is an element of hostility towards government itself, that I find deeply troubling.
Where are these feckers at right now? I know American politics is totally different than ours, but is no one in “opposition” speaking out on the insane shit that’s happening right now?? It’s like they all disappeared in smoke after election day.