Sept 12 Democratic Party Debate: Winners and Losers

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,532
Reaction score
24,098
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
agreed. which is why it baffles me that they've STILL managed to make their

"hey, if you aren't racist, if you believe in climate change (or even pollution, really), you don't think women need to shut the fuck up more, if you don't think gays are making Jesus cry, or if you believe a janitor maybe shouldn't pay the same taxes as his CEO, you might be one of us"

message a fairly competitive one where half the country is against it. I mean, this shouldn't be a hard sell....

I think the problem is unification, and the fact that "left of the GOP" now covers a much wider variety of political perspectives than it used to. Democrats don't agree with each other. A few percent opt out of the party candidate, or don't vote at all, and the unified fascist minority wins the day.

A proportional representation system makes a lot more sense, and would allow all the disparate non-fascist parties to unify for some issues (like impeaching certain creatures) while continuing to indulge their passion for infighting in other areas. But that'll happen sometime after the electoral college is dismantled.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
"hey, if you aren't racist, if you believe in climate change (or even pollution, really), you don't think women need to shut the fuck up more, if you don't think gays are making Jesus cry, or if you believe a janitor maybe shouldn't pay the same taxes as his CEO, you might be one of us"

The complexity is that there are a good number of people who agree with some of the positions here and not others.

Feminists who hate LGBTQ people.

People of color who are sick of the party's central issues being defined by white liberals.

Working poor who are climate deniers or are convinced their tax money shouldn't help poor "deadbeats."


And even people who basically agree with most of the party's positions become demoralized or indifferent when its current focus isn't on their own high priority problem. The down side of a big tent is the impossibility of focusing on everyone's most important issues simultaneously. Some Democrats don't vote in the years when they think their voice isn't being heard. Others, particularly many white working class people who used to be blue collar (back when there were unions), have gotten angry at their former party.

What we really need is a visionary who can convince people with differing priorities within the liberal continuum that we are all in this together, that it's not a zero sum game--we can help working class people of all backgrounds--urban and rural, we can promote the rights of women and LGBTQ people without ignoring everyone else, that we can protect the environment so everyone's children have hope for the future. Oh, and we need to convince the proud working poor who are holding it together by working three jobs with no benefits or security that providing a social safety net isn't enabling deadbeats or encouraging laziness.

And FFS, someone needs to talk about how we as a society will deal with all the people who will soon be out of work because of self-driving trucks, increasing automation, and "smart" software that increases the number of patients/students/customers etc. that even highly educated professionals can serve. This is an issue no one wants to touch or admit to--trusting that technology will somehow create new professions that will pick up the slack. Even if it does, they won't be the same kinds of jobs people have trained all their life for, and it will be very hard on aging workers who can't retire and on all people who simply aren't inclined to return to school and be trained in professions that don't suit their interests or talents.
 
Last edited:

Kjbartolotta

Potentially has/is dog
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
4,197
Reaction score
1,049
Location
Los Angeles
I wasn't that into him at first, though he won me over with his candor. Not sure he was ever my candidate, but I'd take him over two Petes (and five Betos for one Castro).
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
247
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
And FFS, someone needs to talk about how we as a society will deal with all the people who will soon be out of work because of self-driving trucks, increasing automation, and "smart" software that increases the number of patients/students/customers etc. that even highly educated professionals can serve. This is an issue no one wants to touch or admit to--trusting that technology will somehow create new professions that will pick up the slack. Even if it does, they won't be the same kinds of jobs people have trained all their life for, and it will be very hard on aging workers who can't retire and on all people who simply aren't inclined to return to school and be trained in professions that don't suit their interests or talents.

It is a problem, but one that has been going on for hundreds of years - there aren't too many people making wagon wheels today and not many villages have their own blacksmith to make horseshoes for their residents. But a healthy economy can help. Today's economy is pretty good, especially with historic low unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics.
But what about the estimated 2 million insurance company employees who will lose their jobs if a Warren's Medicare-for-all plan is enacted? It's hard for a good economy to absorb that many jobs. Unless, of course, government run Medicare-for-all requires 3-4 million people to do the job.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,476
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
It is a problem, but one that has been going on for hundreds of years - there aren't too many people making wagon wheels today and not many villages have their own blacksmith to make horseshoes for their residents. But a healthy economy can help. Today's economy is pretty good, especially with historic low unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics.
But what about the estimated 2 million insurance company employees who will lose their jobs if a Warren's Medicare-for-all plan is enacted? It's hard for a good economy to absorb that many jobs. Unless, of course, government run Medicare-for-all requires 3-4 million people to do the job.
Are you adding current Medicare employees to the 2 million?

Not that I believe such a change would happen overnight, for many of those people managing private insurance business, yes medicare will need significant increased staffing. Medicare is not saving a ton because it is managed on fewer administrative costs. The difference is they are non-profit.

The employees are not the people taking the cut out of our health care expenses, it's the insurance companies' profits and the deals they have with pharmaceuticals and other health care equipment suppliers.
 
Last edited:

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
12,077
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
Two million work exclusively in health insurance out of c. 160 million total employed people in the USA? One in 80 people? Bloody hell. That's a lot.

What's the rate for people going bankrupt because they can't pay extortionate medical fees?
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,476
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) confessed Wednesday that the Medicare for All plan she is pushing as part of her presidential campaign could throw as many as two million Americans out of work.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...-medicare-for-all-could-cost-two-million-jobs

the final sentence was a bit of sarcasm on my part.

Is that in her written plan, or was it a question she answered in an interview? Was a followup question asked about how many people Medicare will need to hire?

That is how low information voters get their confirmation bias satisfied.

Like I said earlier, this isn't going to happen overnight. Unlike the arrogant jerk in the office now who writes executive orders for everything he can't get Congress to do, Warren is not going to write an Ex Order to put everyone on Medicare.

There's plenty of data supporting the conclusion that we'd all be better off with universal health care and the ability of Medicare to bargain with drug manufacturers.

Insurance companies and drug manufacturers are lobbying heavily to protect their profits. At least consider a lot of sound bite information favors those trying to protect their profits. They aren't fighting for good health care.

This is from your link:
About half those jobs would come from insurance companies, and the other half would come from hospitals and doctors’ offices, he said.
Where are they getting that from? Why would doctors or hospitals go out of business? You just accept that figure without knowing how Prof Pollin came up with it? Are the doctors going to quit and collect unemployment? Right now one reason some hospitals are closing because states are denying people Medicaid, taking away a lot of the patients they would normally see. Those patients wait until they are very ill then go in an ED because the ED cannot turn them away.

There are huge problems with private insurers making demands on hospitals, causing financial issues with the insurance companies' bargaining power. That would be better if those reduced reimbursements were passed on to the patient. They aren't. They go into company profits.

I could go on and on and bore everyone. But rather than that, if I can just get a couple people to stop taking news interviews as the source of complicated policy platforms.

Sadly, that means actually looking at Warren's plan directly, and that's harder than listening to the sound bites. (Lots of links to supporting data and her other positions are at the same link.)

Bottom line, I don't believe the claim hospitals will close and doctors will be out of work without seeing what Pollin is basing that on. And given Medicare is an insurance plan, many of those laid off insurance workers will need to be hired by Medicare.


Edited to add: if those are jobs lost because workers in clinics and hospitals manage billing and collecting from third party payers, their jobs aren't going anywhere.The only change would be who the third party payer was.
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Two million work exclusively in health insurance out of c. 160 million total employed people in the USA? One in 80 people? Bloody hell. That's a lot.
I work for private insurance in Canada (supplemental insurance) and it takes a lot more than the few people selling plans to make an insurance company - the call center; the claims assessors to make sure the rules are being followed, the receipts are good, etc.;
the mailroom, because people send in big lumpy claims, and sometimes get them back that way (this area, my people, are affected by automation and electronic claims more that most, but will still exist as long as people staple their claims together, just toss receipts into a bag, and ask questions)
My suspicion is that jobs won't be lost in the transition to universal Medicare, just because of the need for Customer Service people who can explain things to the baffled and bewildered.
And the need for walk-in offices and paper-handlers, because not every person has a computer and printer to take the automated route. And some people have complicated questions that are easier to explain in person.

Once things get sorted out, there may be losses. It might be useful to slide in a rule that all call-center jobs be done in America, by Americans.
 

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,642
Reaction score
14,865
Location
Massachusetts
Once things get sorted out, there may be losses. It might be useful to slide in a rule that all call-center jobs be done in America, by Americans.

Some of our politicians may talk a good game about valuing Made In America and all that, but the Eleventh Commandment (“Thou shall not hinder the profits of Citizen Corporate”) takes precedence over all. So, can’t really see how we ever get to something like Medicare For All unless it’s rife with corporate fat. And if that means we let them pay pennies to hire desperate Indonesians or Guatemalans to staff shitty call-centers giving shitty quality to boost profits, then let it be done, amen. I mean, what are you, some kind of America-hating commie to suggest otherwise? Boooooo!

/sarc
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
8,431
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
I work for private insurance in Canada (supplemental insurance) and it takes a lot more than the few people selling plans to make an insurance company

There will also be a need for more doctors and nurses (which are also better-paying jobs). We have a nursing shortage, and medical-service deserts in this country already, but when everyone can access care, we're going to need many, many more providers outside of an ER setting.

And you bring up another good point, frimble. M4A would give everyone solid baseline coverage, but there will always be people who want more/better, and a side-line insurance industry will still exist. Just as with Medicare, where you can buy bonus coverages, or more premium levels with wider access to more doctors. That won't ever change in the good ole' USA, where, god knows, the Mark Zuckerburgs of the world are loathe to brush elbows with the "rabble" in a waiting room. :rolleyes
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,476
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
I work for private insurance in Canada (supplemental insurance) and it takes a lot more than the few people selling plans to make an insurance company - the call center; the claims assessors to make sure the rules are being followed, the receipts are good, etc.;
the mailroom, because people send in big lumpy claims, and sometimes get them back that way (this area, my people, are affected by automation and electronic claims more that most, but will still exist as long as people staple their claims together, just toss receipts into a bag, and ask questions)
My suspicion is that jobs won't be lost in the transition to universal Medicare, just because of the need for Customer Service people who can explain things to the baffled and bewildered.
And the need for walk-in offices and paper-handlers, because not every person has a computer and printer to take the automated route. And some people have complicated questions that are easier to explain in person.

Once things get sorted out, there may be losses. It might be useful to slide in a rule that all call-center jobs be done in America, by Americans.

And in my medical conference today I was reminded how much work it takes on the hospital or clinic side for the billing. That won't change much at all.


I do wish Warren would work that into the answer the next time someone asks her about all those supposed lost jobs.
 
Last edited: