5 ms·

What on earth is “socialized insurance”? The Democrats are the party who put massive amounts of effort into derailing the only viable candidate to argue for pu

What on earth is “socialized insurance”? The Democrats are the party who put massive amounts of effort into derailing the only viable candidate to argue for public healthcare. Maybe you don’t care about keeping predatory insurance companies afloat with COBRA payouts, or forcing healthy people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to insurance companies, but plenty of people do.

wwweston 5y ago
> What on earth is “socialized insurance”? Sigh. Look. I appreciate passion for the topic. I absolutely care about this too. I probably spend waaaay more time than a layperson should reading about healthcare problems and policy. Like a lot of other people here on an engineering forum like this, I know the power of approaching things as their own kind of system. And it kinda looks like you don't yet. That's something I've no doubt you could fix, but you'd have to want it. Maybe even enough to google the term "socialized insurance." Or understand that when healthy people pay into risk pools... that's what insurance is. > The Democrats are the party who put massive amounts of effort into derailing the only viable candidate to argue for public healthcare. Presumably you're talking about Sanders. I encourage you to talk to his office while he's not running about other people who are supportive and enthusiastic about public healthcare efforts. There are plenty. Arguably not enough: if they'd had few more Senators to get past Joe Lieberman in 2010, Medicare-for-all-who choose would have been a reality then. As it was the ACA was a mixed but significant policy victory.
- luffapi 5y ago
  Health insurance is a commercial industry. There is absolutely nothing socialized about it. The CEOs of these companies are getting paid tens of millions of dollars. They are INCs. They are not socialized in any way shape or form. They do have regulatory capture, mostly given to them by the Democratic Party.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    > Health insurance is a commercial industry. I can't tell whether you're saying "Health insurance in the US is a commercial industry right now" or "there's no such thing as health insurance that is not commercial." The latter statement is not true. Medicare for all would be socialized insurance, as would any single payer plan. There are other kinds of socialized insurance you can find in other countries. The former statement is mostly true with notable exceptions, so we'll assume that's what you mean. You may not be aware there is socialized insurance in the US, though: Medicare and other state programs (and again, the vast majority of Democratic officeholders supported expanding access to that to everyone in 2010 via what was called the "public option" at the time, unfortunately they needed every last D Senator and Lieberman held out). There are also some non-profit private insurers. > these companies are getting paid tens of millions of dollars. They are INCs. The money flowing through these companies is not the problem. Getting paid to provide valuable services is not a problem. Even if you had a magic wand that you could wave that made Bernie king and M4A a reality, you would still need to employ people to source revenue for the general insurance fund, provide good financial stewardship over it, manage relationships with competent providers, provide service to people like you and I, etc etc. You'd have to pay all those people. Like Medicare already has to (and hires private parties to help). It's likely that entirely socializing insurance would cut down on overhead (and certainly on any profit taking), but the thing is... that's already been limited. By who? Well... these Democrats you're suggesting are somehow primarily responsible for nurturing insurers. Where did this happen? The Affordable Care Act required insurance companies to reveal how they spend consumer premiums, and spend 80% of those premiums on care and efforts to improve quality of care. What companies can take in operating expenses and profits is limited by law to 20%. Did you know that? If you didn't, why are you so confidently holding forth on this topic? If you did, why are you insisting on repeating the line that Democrats don't care and in fact are responsible for increasing expenses and capture of revenue? > They do have regulatory capture They have representation and influence in a democratic system. Arguably too much? Yeah. What's your plan for that? > mostly given to them by the Democratic Party. Again, you're welcome to lay out your model of how the democrats are responsible. If it's really limited to "other people in the party thought they'd make a better candidate/President than Bernie", though, you might want to see if you can come up with something stronger. And while you're at it, maybe start to admit at least to yourself that maybe you have some more to learn about this topic.

wwweston 5y ago

> What on earth is “socialized insurance”? Sigh. Look. I appreciate passion for the topic. I absolutely care about this too. I probably spend waaaay more time than a layperson should reading about healthcare problems and policy. Like a lot of other people here on an engineering forum like this, I know the power of approaching things as their own kind of system. And it kinda looks like you don't yet. That's something I've no doubt you could fix, but you'd have to want it. Maybe even enough to google the term "socialized insurance." Or understand that when healthy people pay into risk pools... that's what insurance is. > The Democrats are the party who put massive amounts of effort into derailing the only viable candidate to argue for public healthcare. Presumably you're talking about Sanders. I encourage you to talk to his office while he's not running about other people who are supportive and enthusiastic about public healthcare efforts. There are plenty. Arguably not enough: if they'd had few more Senators to get past Joe Lieberman in 2010, Medicare-for-all-who choose would have been a reality then. As it was the ACA was a mixed but significant policy victory.

luffapi 5y ago
Health insurance is a commercial industry. There is absolutely nothing socialized about it. The CEOs of these companies are getting paid tens of millions of dollars. They are INCs. They are not socialized in any way shape or form. They do have regulatory capture, mostly given to them by the Democratic Party.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > Health insurance is a commercial industry. I can't tell whether you're saying "Health insurance in the US is a commercial industry right now" or "there's no such thing as health insurance that is not commercial." The latter statement is not true. Medicare for all would be socialized insurance, as would any single payer plan. There are other kinds of socialized insurance you can find in other countries. The former statement is mostly true with notable exceptions, so we'll assume that's what you mean. You may not be aware there is socialized insurance in the US, though: Medicare and other state programs (and again, the vast majority of Democratic officeholders supported expanding access to that to everyone in 2010 via what was called the "public option" at the time, unfortunately they needed every last D Senator and Lieberman held out). There are also some non-profit private insurers. > these companies are getting paid tens of millions of dollars. They are INCs. The money flowing through these companies is not the problem. Getting paid to provide valuable services is not a problem. Even if you had a magic wand that you could wave that made Bernie king and M4A a reality, you would still need to employ people to source revenue for the general insurance fund, provide good financial stewardship over it, manage relationships with competent providers, provide service to people like you and I, etc etc. You'd have to pay all those people. Like Medicare already has to (and hires private parties to help). It's likely that entirely socializing insurance would cut down on overhead (and certainly on any profit taking), but the thing is... that's already been limited. By who? Well... these Democrats you're suggesting are somehow primarily responsible for nurturing insurers. Where did this happen? The Affordable Care Act required insurance companies to reveal how they spend consumer premiums, and spend 80% of those premiums on care and efforts to improve quality of care. What companies can take in operating expenses and profits is limited by law to 20%. Did you know that? If you didn't, why are you so confidently holding forth on this topic? If you did, why are you insisting on repeating the line that Democrats don't care and in fact are responsible for increasing expenses and capture of revenue? > They do have regulatory capture They have representation and influence in a democratic system. Arguably too much? Yeah. What's your plan for that? > mostly given to them by the Democratic Party. Again, you're welcome to lay out your model of how the democrats are responsible. If it's really limited to "other people in the party thought they'd make a better candidate/President than Bernie", though, you might want to see if you can come up with something stronger. And while you're at it, maybe start to admit at least to yourself that maybe you have some more to learn about this topic.