b_m_b_m_b_m

Then perhaps we should have a population wide insurance pool, which can then leverage it's buying power to keep costs in check, while eliminating administrative overhead (including advertisitng, profits, and stupid high private sector health administration salaries). People can't afford a $400 emergency today with our insurance system of "personal responsibility" and real income hasn't moved in decades for the bottom 90% of earners. A "reasonable" deductible or copay for one is a choice between medical care and other necessities for another. Don't forget we have a higher level of poverty than other Western countries you try to compare to. We're the wealthiest country on the planet. It's a fucking joke that we can't give everyone a fairly robust form of health insurance or care. I think initially we would see some waiting, but once the backlog of 'people who had been putting off necessary care' is taken care of, waits will come down. It will vary from state to state, because some states are better than others when it comes to uninsured and under insured rates.

Millions don't have any form of insurance(let alone affordable insurance), and put off getting necessary or even prudent health checkups at all primarily due to cost. Some of whom end up going to the ER with far more serious problems, at a far more serious cost. But we're worried about over utilization. Top kek.

A cry for help/attention.

Trump always struck me as a hungry hungry hippos kind of guy

Think of the average* voter. Half the people are dumber than that.

This is as good as any thread about Facebook to put this

There's still Barron. The only winning move is to not play.

I mean, I'm having a hard time coming up with an analog for a government funded/operated insurance company that competes with insurance companies on the open market. Like the post office is explicitly called for in Article 1, and Social security/Medicare is constitutional under a fairly broad definition of "general welfare". The FDIC and similar corps don't compete against other companies due to their nature. Further, because it is insurance, does it need to be regulated by the states? Or is it not subject to state rules? I can see hospitals, state restricted insurance companies, and state attorneys general seeing that as a violation of the 10th amendment. And even if you can say that insurance can be sold across state lines to compensate, I see state attorneys general and hospitals/doctors fighting that, as you'd have to administer on potentially 50 sets of state insurance rules, or have it so abuses or coverage issues can't be resolved by AGs in their own state, they'd literally have to make a federal case of it. I guess the feds could try to preempt the state insurance rules, but that would also be a hefty 10th amendment challenge, and would be a massive hit to jobs, with minimal impact to individual costs. That would be a huge political impact, albiet one that MFA has as well. People would still have to be on the hook for thousands in deductibles(this is the big one) and premiums and copays. Or you could expand a known, popular program to everyone, and have less risk of the program imploding for a similar political cost. You'd have a better ability to control costs with a single payer system as well.

Is a public insurance option even constitutional?

Time for pee tape 2, electric boogaloo

I have a stupid tendency to think he had some agency, but he's just pure, unfiltered id

It still blows my mind just how close Trump has/had been to being an extremely popular president, if not for his own stupid miscalculations.

So exports minus inventories was a net gain of 0.06% is that right?

Cause fuck the middle class. Means testing is just a way of weakening political support for a program. Instead of it being universal, it's a program for the poors and can be cut with impunity, or just not implemented at all.

Republicans talking about "Dem garbage" in southeast Michigan is totally not coded racial language.

Personally, yes. For someone working at my company I'd be a bit more wary

If Trump wins in 2020 that's enough reason to go out of country. I'd say pretty damn left if I had to pick a place on the spectrum, but with a healthy respect for markets so I can't get on the DSA or tariff train. Without a doubt Trump's presidency has moved me further left than I thought would happen.

Moderation in moderation

Went to be an analyst. That stem degree buys a decent amount of credibility when your boss has an engineering background. Mostly a different company/industry. The political aspect is secondary, to be honest, but it's still something to consider.

There is a very nonzero chance that they would attempt/actually implement a national LTC program, that would effectively put me out of a job in this current company. With Trump, it's a very zero chance this happens. But regardless, that would be 2020, and it would be well past time to jump for greener pastures.

This thread is funnier if you make his full name "Fuck Scott Lloyd"

Heh, I work for a long term care insurance company. And I agree 100% with this article. Luckily for me, I'm in a tech role so I can transition out of this if necessary (I'm not going to be here long term anyway, maybe another two years before jumping ship, and definitely jumping if a democratic Congress and president are in office)

I wonder if Ron Ryan hasn't had time to read this, or anything else, now that he's busy preparing for life after retirement

I love that graph.

Isn't this what you libs wanted????!?!??