Submitted by buttergams t3_ykko18 in vermont
buttergams OP t1_iutq3ca wrote
Reply to comment by SashaPurr420 in What's up with the open enrollment healthcare plans? by buttergams
Dang. I was under the assumption it was a form of free healthcare. Good to know, at least
somedudevt t1_iuu4wfe wrote
No free healthcare until we vote out those that block it. Get yourself active. Vote blue.
ginguegiskhan t1_iuugcl1 wrote
Are you talking federal, or state
somedudevt t1_iuuh8wi wrote
I’m taking school board, I’m talking mayor, I’m talking county, state, federal, if it’s an elected office you can choose someone who supports basic human rights or you can choose someone who doesn’t. Most politicians start small, and if the Republican playbook has taught anything it’s that winning small insignificant local elections allow you to redraw maps in larger more significant elections.
Honestly it amazes me that there is even a discussion. The platforms are just so different… I dont understand how any good person can support a platform that opposes healthcare, that opposes woman’s equality, that opposes gay rights, that opposes education, that opposes public institutions, that opposes economic justice, the list of their opposition goes on, and it seems the only things they support are keeping white men (I’m one so I benefit from this) propped up and in power.
suzi-r t1_iuxebdl wrote
I’m voting for you!
you_give_me_coupon t1_iuz3i6y wrote
> The platforms are just so different
Red team and blue team differ on plenty of things, but are they really so far apart on healthcare? It's not like the Dems are working overtime to get universal healthcare done. (Biden said he'd veto it even if it passed the house and senate, lol.) During Obama's brief period with a supermajority, all we got was a blue-branded version of a Heritage Foundation policy paper, to the right of even the Clintons' limp-wristed effort in the 90s.
Meanwhile even right-wing opponents of universal healthcare at Koch-funded thinktanks have been saying for years that M4A would save $300 billion yearly. I suspect they're willing to be so out in the open about that instead of spreading FUD in the usual Republican style (see climate change) because they know there's no party willing to even try for M4A, despite the obvious material, economic benefits for regular people.
bizarre_pencil t1_iuui14e wrote
Only people who think like me are good people!!!! What a balanced and level headed worldview.
somedudevt t1_iuz4yox wrote
So to be clear people who oppose:
Woman’s rights Civil rights Gender equality Economic equality Voting rights Gay rights Public education Healthcare as a right Keeping school kids safe Reigning in police brutality And support: Tax cuts for the rich War for economic gain Gerrymandering and disenfranchisement Religious freedom only if you are Christian Etc
Are good people?
I’m not saying that my way of thinking is the only right way, I’m saying that there is a baseline of decency, and currently one party isn’t meeting thst threshold. We can disagree on whether healthcare for all should be fully socialized or just a public option… but there isn’t an argument that stands for fully private.
We can disagree on what steps we take to reduce abortion levels whether it be family planning, or better sex education, but there is no argument that holds that a woman should die because a fetus is miscarrying and she can’t get medical help as a doctor cannot legally end the pregnancy safely.
We can disagree on election security whether it’s a free ID sent to every registered voter automatically, or vote by mail based code or whatever, but there is no argument to be made that we should limit who can vote, or that we should put up any barriers reduce polling places drop offs mail in etc that disadvantages certain voters.
We can disagree on whether the tax rate for Elon musk should be 90% or 70%, but there is no argument to be made that his tax rate should be lower than mine.
you_give_me_coupon t1_iuz1yrq wrote
> Vote blue.
If the Dems were actually going to do anything about universal healthcare, this would be a good option. Instead, almost none of them mention it, even the "progressives" don't even want a vote on it, and the "most progressive president since FDR" said he'd veto Medicare for All even if it passed the house and senate.
Even the worst-case right-wing estimates from Koch-funded think tanks that hate universal healthcare estimate M4A would save $300 billion a year. My family would have saved ~$2500 a year under Bernie's M4A plan, just in premiums. My fucking deductible was 14k last year.
> No free healthcare until we vote out those that block it.
Hear, hear. Regular people can get this done if we band together and make politicians - of all parties, especially the dems - fear that we won't vote for them if they don't deliver things that benefit us in real, material terms, like universal healthcare.
bobsizzle t1_iuv05q0 wrote
There is no such thing as free healthcare. Free to you doesn't mean free. You'll pay for it one way or another. Higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. They need to first control the cost of healthcare and stop letting companies charge one price for drugs here and a much cheaper price elsewhere. They can lower the cost to start with. And then decide on what system to use. Either way it's not free. And wait times are crazy, in many countries with the government paid 'free' healthcare. Many have to end up going private and paying out of pocket to see a doctor unless they want to wait 6 months. So not all roses and sunshine. But they can do better and limit the profits of the healthcare system. Negotiating costs in more circumstances would be a small start.
somedudevt t1_iuv2pus wrote
We are already all paying for the shitty system that provides profits at every level. It should be 100% government. You get cost in-line by stopping the pay per service shit. I’m in favor of totally socialized medicine, that would be Dr’s being government employees or contractors, medical facilities being government owned etc.
But in my eyes free is not costing more than today. If we could go socialized for what we pay today that would be a win. And really we could do it for much less. Between myself and my employer my healthcare costs $12,000 a year. On top of that I have a 3k deductible. So my baseline is 15000 a year in cost for healthcare. Everyone bitches “well taxes will go up” but they fail to realize that currently wages are just held down in equal proportion.
Now so far this year I’ve not been to the Dr, in 2021 I went to the Dr a total of 0 times, in 2020 1 time in 2019 3 times. I see a nurse when I go and have never met the dr who is my PCP.
Most studies say that a 6% flat income tax split between payroll tax and the worker would be enough to fund full socialized medicine. That would be a 70% reduction from what is currently being paid for my health insurance. If you ask me that’s free…
Sure that means that Elon and Bill are getting a higher bill for their insurance, but I assume that my corporate gig scenerio is pretty common cost wise today, and if you do the math, we are looking at 250k annual income as the spot where 6% would become more than the 15k in current cost. So this would be a tax cut/expense cut for 90% of households.
you_give_me_coupon t1_iuz2p2h wrote
> But in my eyes free is not costing more than today. If we could go socialized for what we pay today that would be a win. And really we could do it for much less. Between myself and my employer my healthcare costs $12,000 a year. On top of that I have a 3k deductible. So my baseline is 15000 a year in cost for healthcare. Everyone bitches “well taxes will go up” but they fail to realize that currently wages are just held down in equal proportion.
It's even better than that. Under Bernie's M4A plan, my family would have saved ~$2500 yearly, just in premiums, not counting copays and deductibles. (My family's deductible was $14k last year, lol.) Even Koch-funded thinktanks that oppose universal healthcare have admitted for a few years now that M4A would save $300 billion a year.
Keeping the current private system is the fiscally irresponsible option. We're basically flushing $300 billion down the toilet, so that a few people atop a useless, parasitic industry can buy yachts. It's insane.
bobsizzle t1_iuv3yt6 wrote
It's still not free. You should call it government subsidized or government paid. But someone will still pay. Even if you pay less. Dog shit is bigger then mouse poop, but It's still shit. My healthcare actually costs almost twice as much as yours but I have no deductible and employer pays 80 percent. I'd rather get more of that back in my paychecks, but I like being able to see a doctor when I want. And I don't go often, but when I do, it's a doctor. Socialized healthcare is better if they can give more people healthcare but at a lower cost. But I don't think it'll cost less and because Americans are fat ass and unhealthy, wait times will go up. I don't think just copying European style healthcare is the best idea. But they need to control cost and make it affordable to all. which they can do. They can lower cost, set prices. Make healthcare not for profit and compete with pharmaceutical companies to make drugs if necessary. No shareholders, just money that goes back into public coffers.
decisivemomentum t1_iuvk88z wrote
God forbid you have to wait rather than just immediately not getting the care you need!
Srr013 t1_iuvvg8f wrote
OP very obviously means free health insurance, which can literally be free to the individual. Get off your soapbox. Also most of what you said is quite biased. Wait times in the US aren’t significantly better than other western countries. Western countries with socialized medicine also pay less for care overall (even if it comes in the form of a tax vs an insurance payment) vs the extremely high cost of care in America.
Think_Rock_6439 t1_iuty196 wrote
try to apply for medicaid, if youre approved this is your best bet.
delicioustreeblood t1_iutz7n5 wrote
It's part of the Affordable Care Act
Jerry_Williams69 t1_iutxtus wrote
Vermont's attempt at that imploded like 10 years ago
RetiscentSun t1_iux4fab wrote
Shitty attempt by a shitty governor*.
Also presumably anybody talking about universal healthcare is talking about it on a national level.
you_give_me_coupon t1_iuz40vj wrote
It's worth remembering that when Shumlin canned single payer in 2014, the report he waved around at his infamous press conference said the opposite of what he claimed: even in the worst-case scenario, the overwhelming majority of Vermonters would have come out ahead under single-payer. The media, even VPR, just transcribed his lie and repeated it over and over. Meanwhile, the case for single-payer is even better now, since costs have roughly doubled since 2014, making the choice to maintain the current system even more fiscally (and morally) irresponsible.
[deleted] t1_iutrxaq wrote
[deleted]
-_Stove_- t1_iuwcbtn wrote
"Free" is relative- someone, somewhere, is always paying. Also, even if you have health insurance, you're not out of the woods if you need to use it. You'd think, with what we pay, that it could at least be a bit easier to use.
somedudevt t1_iuz5njz wrote
The someone somewhere paying for everything in the US is Janet Yellen. As long as the money printer is on creating money from nothing and people allow her to assign it a value and trade it for goods and service everything is free if we want it to be. Janet could just print and extra 500b into the system. That’s how everything else works… bank bailouts, auto industry bailouts, Covid relief, foreign aid, military budge. It’s all just Janet YOLOing that printer till China calls and ends the party.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments