US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

New York Times: Trump asked advisers about possible strike on Iranian nuclear site

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/trump-possible-offensive-iran-nuclear-site/index.html

 

What's starting a war with a foot out the door gonna do for your political rival?

Thankfully we saw that his button so far has been too big to push for his short fingers. to push

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Watching that and the Daily Show stoned in HS is what really got me into politics. 

Indecision 2000 and how sadly prophetic that graphic turnout out to be - plus how surreal it was that Bob Dole was a frequent contributor only four years after being embarrassed by Clinton (and he was pretty damn funny) - was what did it for me.

[SFDanny]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Indecision 2000 and how sadly prophetic that graphic turnout out to be - plus how surreal it was that Bob Dole was a frequent contributor only four years after being embarrassed by Clinton (and he was pretty damn funny) - was what did it for me.

It was the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement of the 60s that did it for me.

OK, so I'm older than dirt.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

It was the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement of the 60s that did it for me.

OK, so I'm older than dirt.

And yet weirdly younger than a lot of artificial beach sand at a lot of popular tropical resorts.  

[Fury Resurrected]

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

Indecision 2000 and how sadly prophetic that graphic turnout out to be - plus how surreal it was that Bob Dole was a frequent contributor only four years after being embarrassed by Clinton (and he was pretty damn funny) - was what did it for me.

I have felt the loss of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show very keenly the last four years

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I have felt the loss of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show very keenly the last four years

Trevor Noah does a great job!  And, in many ways a considerably tougher job.  It was easy to lampoon Dubya and his administration.  With the Trump administration, it's difficult to come up with satire more completely ludicrous than the reality.  But yeah it's just not the same for "my generation," which is kinda ridiculous to say considering Noah is only 15 months older than me.  Then again I guess it's kinda like Gen Xers identifying with Letterman.

[Lollygag]

Jon Stewart has a new current affairs show on Apple TV in the works.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/media/jon-stewart-apple-tv/index.html

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 11/15/2020 at 7:21 PM, Chataya de Fleury said:

Warren was too for to the left for me.

I loved Buttigieg, Klobuchar was my second choice, and Biden my third. Tom Steyer got points for his toe selection. I donated some good $$ to Buttigieg, and more than token amounts to Klobuchar.

With Clyburn’s endorsement, and after South Carolina went for Biden, it was clear to me that we had to consolidate or we were going to be stuck with Bernie, like how the 2016 moderate Republicans couldn’t consolidate and ended up with Trump.

I actually wrote to Klobuchar after Buttigieg bowed out and begged her to suspend her campaign. 

That’s really how serious I felt about stopping Bernie. 

You'll probably see a concerted effort from the Bernie Bros (which I'm one of) just not voting in the next election because of this kind of shit. We're always told, "now's not the time," but the truth is, the neo-liberal/centrist people in the party just disdain the left and what they stand for: healthcare as a human right, better wages for working people, etc. I don't know why this is, but that's just the way it is. 

Who knows, maybe with all the Republican votes the Dems get when the left abandons them will more than make up for the loss.

[Darzin]

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

You'll probably see a concerted effort from the Bernie Bros (which I'm one of) just not voting in the next election because of this kind of shit. We're always told, "now's not the time," but the truth is, the neo-liberal/centrist people in the party just disdain the left and what they stand for: healthcare as a human right, better wages for working people, etc. I don't know why this is, but that's just the way it is. 

But now is the time. We just elected someone who supports healthcare for all and a higher wage for working people! Rejoice! You've won.

[Which Tyler]

dammit

[Fury Resurrected]

55 minutes ago, Darzin said:

But now is the time. We just elected someone who supports healthcare for all and a higher wage for working people! Rejoice! You've won.

I mean, he supports healthcare for all as in a healthcare mandate. Biden has said numerous times he doesn’t support Medicare for all or UHC or uncoupling healthcare from employment. That’s not really what the left mean when they say healthcare for all, and I’m sure you know that. 
 

COVID-19 is the exact reason that tying healthcare coverage to employment is an unsustainable, stupid system. What do you do when a health crisis causes mass employment? The answer, so far, is essentially nothing. That there is any American politician or voter does not see this as a huge problem that must be solved makes me very disheartened about anything positive getting done on any front. Because this is glaringly obvious.

[S John]

2 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I mean, he supports healthcare for all as in a healthcare mandate. Biden has said numerous times he doesn’t support Medicare for all or UHC or uncoupling healthcare from employment. That’s not really what the left mean when they say healthcare for all, and I’m sure you know that. 
 

COVID-19 is the exact reason that tying healthcare coverage to employment is an unsustainable, stupid system. What do you do when a health crisis causes mass employment? The answer, so far, is essentially nothing. That there is any American politician or voter does not see this as a huge problem that must be solved makes me very disheartened about anything positive getting done on any front. Because this is glaringly obvious.

Yea, healthcare being tied to employment is bullshit. That’s really what I’d like to see change and I don’t care what the mechanism is for doing it. Losing your job can happen to anyone, and it might not even be your fault when it does. The fact loss in income also comes with an astronomical increase in the price of medical care, not just for you but potentially for your entire family (!) is a really cruel aspect of our society and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. A pandemic seems like a great time to do that, but I’m not holding my breath.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, S John said:

Yea, healthcare being tied to employment is bullshit. That’s really what I’d like to see change and I don’t care what the mechanism is for doing it. Losing your job can happen to anyone, and it might not even be your fault when it does. The fact loss in income also comes with an astronomical increase in the price of medical care, not just for you but potentially for your entire family (!) is a really cruel aspect of our society and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. A pandemic seems like a great time to do that, but I’m not holding my breath.

Here's the rub though, if you decouple the two, how do you force employers to make up the difference in overall benefits? One of the biggest upsides of my current job is I get great healthcare for next to nothing and it's because my employer pays over 80% of the cost of my coverage. They're not just going to give me that back in pay if they no longer have to cover me, meanwhile my taxes would go up to cover the cost of UHC. 

[JoannaL]

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the rub though, if you decouple the two, how do you force employers to make up the difference in overall benefits. One of the biggest upsides of my current job is I get great healthcare for next to nothing and it's because my employer pays over 80% of the cost of my coverage. They're not just going to give me that back in pay if they no longer have to cover me, meanwhile my taxes would go up to cover the cost of UHC. 

In Germany any employer has by law always to pay half of your insurance costs. Your family is insured without costs (which means it makes no diferrence for the employer if you have family).  If you get unemployed the unemployement insurance pays also your health care cost (normaly up to one year). Afterwards the  state pays your insurance but only if you have no money and live of state support. so there is only a problem if you have no job for more than a year but still enough money left to not get state support. In this case you have to use your own money until you need state support.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Standard economic theory says that any difference would be made up for in take home pay, because employees aren't idiots and will understand their employer was willing and able to effectively pay them more in the very recent past. Unions are capable of negotiating this on behalf of their members as well.

We would, on top of that, all be better off if the system we went to was single payer, as the experience of the rest of the civilized world tells us is it would dramatically lower our per capita health care costs over time, making everyone not involved in the health insurance racket richer. 

Finally, the moral imperative is that we find some way to transition away from our barbaric current system, even if that does in fact meant that some people take a short term hit. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

There's no reason to believe that would be true under our current conditions. COVID is going to massively speed up automation, and a lot of employers are realizing they can save a ton by not having to pay employees more to live in more expensive areas. They'll be slashing costs left and right. If you're in a high demand field, sure, the difference will be made up to some degree, but most people would get screwed without concurring legislation forcing employers to make up the difference. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's no reason to believe that would be true under our current conditions. COVID is going to massively speed up automation, and a lot of employers are realizing they can save a ton by not having to pay employees more to live in more expensive areas. They'll be slashing costs left and right. If you're in a high demand field, sure, the difference will be made up to some degree, but most people would get screwed without concurring legislation forcing employers to make up the difference. 

And this does not stand out to you as a glaring reason why it's important to have health insurance detached from employment? 

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the rub though, if you decouple the two, how do you force employers to make up the difference in overall benefits? One of the biggest upsides of my current job is I get great healthcare for next to nothing and it's because my employer pays over 80% of the cost of my coverage. They're not just going to give me that back in pay if they no longer have to cover me, meanwhile my taxes would go up to cover the cost of UHC. 

In the UK, everyone pays 12% of salary after £10k up to £50k, then 2% after that. The employer pays circa 13%. But that’s for cost free healthcare (no copayment) and state pension.

[IheartIheartTesla]

The argument for increased wages by decoupling health care to employment is (probably) a two-step one: increased mobility between jobs since one of the barriers to movement is removed, followed by companies forced to provide competitive wage increases to keep their employees for leaving.

This argument is not universal and likely applies to more specialized jobs rather than so-called unskilled/lower-skilled ones, but like all economic theories we wont know the real answer until we try it.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the rub though, if you decouple the two, how do you force employers to make up the difference in overall benefits? One of the biggest upsides of my current job is I get great healthcare for next to nothing and it's because my employer pays over 80% of the cost of my coverage. They're not just going to give me that back in pay if they no longer have to cover me, meanwhile my taxes would go up to cover the cost of UHC. 

In my view, only obstacle to axing employer sponsored healthcare is political,  not some technocratic reason, like how to finance it. I'm not sure why you assume why employers have to pay for it. When your employer compensates you, I'm pretty sure they are taking healthcare  cost into account, which they are deducting from your base pay. They are not giving you those benefits out of the bottom of their good old hearts.

The technocratic reasons for obliterating employer sponsored health care are strong. It's the politics that get messy. Its generally why I prefer a public option and killing it slowly over time, as in feed it a little bit of arsenic here and little more arsenic there, until it keels over.