Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-07-17, 03:38 PM   #376
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
mspmms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Indianapolis,IN
Posts: 4,965
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by raven56706 View Post
thats not real right?
Yes, from last month.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 03:56 PM   #377
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

I think it is time for the Dem's to take up Single Payer as their main issue.

Yes, I know it is about like bringing up gun control, but with the entire country focused on it, it wasn't so "easy" to repeal and replace, I think prime opportunity.

Its clear that the American people want health care. They are not (as a whole) even mad any more that by law they are required to have it.

I think it could be a galvanizing topic. The GOP has shown they only care about taking from poor/middle class and giving to the rich. While I think just as many rich in the DNC, I think they can push this issue. They have time to not only come up with quick sound bite topics, but also educate and explain. "Single payer is just like your taxes going to the fire department. Everyone pays so that we have a strong, healthy available resource for everyone".

It is absolutely a gamble. But if (and I mean it is a big if) they can show that Single Payer is not a "socialist" program (it is not) nor an "entitlement" (humm...healthcare should be a right not a privilege for a select few), and "before the ACA we had 50 million+ with no health care. Now we are 28 million with no health care. How about we take that to zero?".
__________________
Live Free. Dine Well. Drink good beer.

Home Theater Build
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 04:05 PM   #378
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 24,467
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Yeah, I'm all for that. Repubs have already proven they have no idea how to fix healthcare. At least Dems would come across has having a plan. And a great response to any Repub challenges ("well, what's your plan?")
__________________
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. - Men in Black
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 04:46 PM   #379
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
It is absolutely a gamble. But if (and I mean it is a big if) they can show that Single Payer is not a "socialist" program (it is not) nor an "entitlement" (humm...healthcare should be a right not a privilege for a select few), and "before the ACA we had 50 million+ with no health care. Now we are 28 million with no health care. How about we take that to zero?".
This is not a criticism of the prospect or taking sides, but how is "single payer" not a "socialist" program? As you yourself described in the paragraph preceding the one above, it's paid for through taxes just as other social services. People who don't pay taxes will receive it, too, and those who can afford to pay with pay for others through our progressive tax system.

It's not using "socialism" as a pejorative to describe "single payer" (i.e., the government) as a socialist program any more than it is to describe Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or the other government services you mention as socialism. Is it? Serious question...what's the difference between socialism and government-provided services?
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 07:34 PM   #380
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 52,539
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
I don't think Trump will win 2020. You're looking at a Pence/[insert running mate here] 2020 ticket for Republicans, and it probably will work. Democrats could still win a 2020 ticket if they have Tim Ryan running for President, imo. However, he would have to drop the extremist candidates that could pull him down (or further left and extreme).

2020 must be a moderate base of candidates in order for either Dems or Reps to have a chance of winning. Second, the issues. The issues must be bipartisan and reasonable.

If one party does NOT have moderates campaigning, they will tank, and tank fast.
I disagree. The Dems ran someone who was the definition of a centrist. Clinton wasn't for anything progressive until someone further left of her pushed her to it. She was a classic neoliberal and lost to the worst candidate in American history. The Dems need to find a spine, find an ethos, and run with it. The Pelosi "capitalism at all costs" wing, the Harris "gotta love that slave prison labor" wing and the Booker "hey ma look how much big pharma pays me" wing are going to alienate the most fired up voting base the left has had in years.

It doesn't have to be Bernie, but at the very least Dems have to run candidates who are running enthusiastically on single payer and sticking to their guns on abortion. That is literally the bare minimum they can do to try and get the votes of those on the left who actually give a shit. Ideally we'd also get candidates speaking out against private prisons and the prison state in general, and also getting serious about police reform and rooting out white supremacists from police organizations.

Running ever further to the middle is an inexorable slide to the right. The GOP has shown they're willing to go as far right as they have to, and the Dems are never going to win by being slightly less right than the right wing extremists who now control the GOP.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Check out my vinyl collection!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 08:29 PM   #381
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,692
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
I think it is time for the Dem's to take up Single Payer as their main issue.

Yes, I know it is about like bringing up gun control, but with the entire country focused on it, it wasn't so "easy" to repeal and replace, I think prime opportunity.

Its clear that the American people want health care. They are not (as a whole) even mad any more that by law they are required to have it.

I think it could be a galvanizing topic. The GOP has shown they only care about taking from poor/middle class and giving to the rich. While I think just as many rich in the DNC, I think they can push this issue. They have time to not only come up with quick sound bite topics, but also educate and explain. "Single payer is just like your taxes going to the fire department. Everyone pays so that we have a strong, healthy available resource for everyone".

It is absolutely a gamble. But if (and I mean it is a big if) they can show that Single Payer is not a "socialist" program (it is not) nor an "entitlement" (humm...healthcare should be a right not a privilege for a select few), and "before the ACA we had 50 million+ with no health care. Now we are 28 million with no health care. How about we take that to zero?".
I dig it. I'm in. Seriously, you should pass this along, it's great.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 09:28 PM   #382
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Of course Democrats have absolute control over their message and how they want to frame it, but most politicians of any persuasion want to garner as many votes as possible.

Or if that sounds too cynical, to represent as many viewpoints as possible. Isn't that one of the main criticisms of partisan politics...that elected officials should represent "all of their constituents?"

While not disagreeing that parties should stand for some principles that are non-negotiable, there is also the viewpoint that parties should attempt to build as large and varied a coalition as possible. One explanation for election losses is that the party failed to "energize the base;" another explanation is that the party had too narrow appeal for many.

Anyway, it seems oxymoronic to call a funding system "single payer" while in the same breath explaining that the term means that "everyone pays." That, of course, is factually incorrect since not everyone receiving benefits would pay, just as the "single" payer funding the system is everyone.

Terms such as "universal health care" or "single payer system" may have semantic advantages over "government-funded health care," but that's just a semantic distinction, not a real one.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 10:05 PM   #383
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
PatD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,384
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

And for God's sake the Dems need to pick someone with CHARISMA to be their champion in 2020 or Trump is going to eat them. If they trot out a John Kerry-type, they might as well pack it in as a party.
__________________
STREAMING: All the fun of paying the fiddler and then dancing to the tune of HIS choice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 10:26 PM   #384
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Of course Democrats have absolute control over their message and how they want to frame it, but most politicians of any persuasion want to garner as many votes as possible.

Or if that sounds too cynical, to represent as many viewpoints as possible. Isn't that one of the main criticisms of partisan politics...that elected officials should represent "all of their constituents?"

While not disagreeing that parties should stand for some principles that are non-negotiable, there is also the viewpoint that parties should attempt to build as large and varied a coalition as possible. One explanation for election losses is that the party failed to "energize the base;" another explanation is that the party had too narrow appeal for many.

Anyway, it seems oxymoronic to call a funding system "single payer" while in the same breath explaining that the term means that "everyone pays." That, of course, is factually incorrect since not everyone receiving benefits would pay, just as the "single" payer funding the system is everyone.

Terms such as "universal health care" or "single payer system" may have semantic advantages over "government-funded health care," but that's just a semantic distinction, not a real one.
You mean exactly like not all people pay taxes for public schools but all can use that "benefit"? Or that not all pay for taxes that go for the fire department, yet everyone gets the fire department come to them when their house is on fire. Or do mean not everyone pays taxes for the police department, but yet if you are a victim the police will help you?

When you say "government funded" please explain how the government makes money? What product do they produce and sell at a profit?

And please enlighten us on, strong, self sufficient, democratic countries that have something other than single payer. That works better.

Last edited by Sdallnct; 08-08-17 at 04:38 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-17, 11:27 PM   #385
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 52,539
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

The healthcare debate woke a lot of people up. They realized that they liked affordable healthcare, while simultaneously realizing that current healthcare costs are still rising. The thought of potentially taking away that healthcare or making it even more expensive enraged many people. The GOP bills were outrageously unpopular.

You can't put band aids on the ACA to fix it. You need to go he next step and take insurance companies out of the equation entirely. Single payer is gaining traction and the Dems would be absolute fools not to run on it, but of course that's what they're doing. They're even supporting a GOP candidate in one race because the Dem candidate is strongly pro-single payer.

As for the idea that moving Left would alienate too many people, I think that's a fallacy. The center is the status quo. People do not like the status quo right now. Wages are stagnant, jobs are scarce, racism/sexism/homophobia and transphobia are on the rise. Offering more of the same but slightly less bad and with more identity politics alienates more people than it energizes. Progressives are waking up to what progressivism actually is, and realizing that neoliberalism is just exploitation with a smile. The hardcore right wingers aren't going to vote Democrat no matter what, so why try to appeal to them by fielding anti-abortion candidates? All that does is lose votes, not gain them. The centrist Democrats will likely have no problem voting for more progressive candidates if the party embraces them, because the centrist Dems will always vote the party line. All that's left are progressives and independents, who want to see the Democrats actually be for something, not just be a less mean version of the GOP.

Repeating the 2016 election is a surefire failure. Only a move to the left can give the Dems a fighting chance.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Check out my vinyl collection!

Last edited by Supermallet; 08-08-17 at 09:54 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 05:00 AM   #386
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Yes, the public is finally educating itself on healthcare. I can't remember who it was, but some politian at a town hall meeting brought up the false claim that the ACA had death panels. He about got run out of the meeting.

Yet for many a year prior this was a rally cry "the government picks and chooses who lives". People now know better.

And I believe the Dem's can take advantage of that. Just a few years ago, the GOP could have changed healthcare on the promise of "more options, but cheaper" even though they had no explaination on how. Or they could have trotted out a stack of papers and said "our bill is smaller so it has to be better" crap and people would have bought it.

Now the country is educated. Now people are learning and talking. Is it really that big of a step to say "yes, your taxes would go up, but that is offset by no insurance premiums?" People know understand "large deductibles" and "co-pays".

I was playing around at the Tesla web sight. They have a "cost of ownership" calculator. They don't hide the fact that you will use more electricity and that will cost more on your electrical bill. But they show for the amount of miles how much less gas you spend.

Don't hide the fact that taxes will go up. Own it. Just show the offset of no insurance premium payments. People are realizing there is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Heck use Medicare as an example. I've never heard Medicare being called a "socialist" program. Or as Creek mentioned people worry that not every single person that uses it payed into it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 05:13 AM   #387
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
You mean exactly like not all people pay taxes for public schools but all can use that "benefit"? Or that not all pay for taxes that go for the fire department, yet everyone gets the fire department come to them when their house is on fire. Or do mean not everyone pays taxes for the police department, but yet if you are a victim the police will help you?

When you say "government funded" please explain how the government makes money? What product do they produce and sell at a profit?

And please enlighten us on, strong, self sufficient, democratic countries that have something other than single payer. That works better.
Ummm...yeah.

I stated up front that my question wasn't expressing an opinion on the system or proposal itself but merely responding to your assertion that "single payer" isn't the same as "socialism." And asked you to explain the difference.

There's no need to get all hostile, as I explained that I was just curious to hear how you make the distinction in terms.

(Since you brought it up, you may remember a nationally-publicized story within the last few years in which a fire department refused to respond to a call and watched a house burn to the ground because the homeowner refused to pay the local taxes. Or something similar. At any rate, the response was dependent upon prior payment...similar to paying insurance fees. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked you about the difference between "single payer" and "socialism" other than the fact that the first term doesn't have as many negative associations as the second).
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 05:26 AM   #388
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Don't hide the fact that taxes will go up. Own it. Just show the offset of no insurance premium payments. People are realizing there is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Heck use Medicare as an example. I've never heard Medicare being called a "socialist" program. Or as Creek mentioned people worry that not every single person that uses it payed into it.
Actually, Sdall, Creek did not say anything of the sort. Creek merely pointed out...just as Sdall did...that a "single payer" system is paid for by taxes; therefore, the "single payer" is actually everyone who pays taxes. And then asked Sdall...who said that is not the same as socialism...to explain how that system is not the same as socialism.

That's it. Sdall should not read something into a simple question that was never there. And Sdall might find that Medicare was described as socialism from the time it was first proposed...and continues to be described in that way today since the term seems to fit.

Can't we all just get along????
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."

Last edited by creekdipper; 08-08-17 at 05:42 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 05:50 AM   #389
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Ok, I thought the way you were asking was taking a stand.

A single payer (like Medicare) is not "socialism" (and I've never heard Medicare describe like it was, but those that do, do so falsely. I presume for the same reason some still claim the ACA has death panels) is simply a payment system. You still have private doctors, hospitals, drug companies.

Single payer replaces the insurance company. So unless someone is making the claim that insurance companies are socialistic, I don't see how you could claim a single payer was.

(I guess some will try to make the claim that any "pooling" of money is socialistic because my money is going to help pay for others. But we pool money a lot. Some things are just to big for indidivduals)

You could perhaps say the VA is socialistic. Maybe. The goverment runs everything including the Dr's. But not even Bernie is suggesting we do do that for all. No one I've heard is suggesting we expand the VA. Often I hear the term "Medicare for all".

And to be fair. There are many versions of "universal healthcare" around the world. But I'm talking about what has be at least mentioned here in the US.

Last edited by Sdallnct; 08-08-17 at 05:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 06:06 AM   #390
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Well, thanks for answering, but I think you're missing a distinction.

A private insurance company does not represent "socialism" just because it serves more than one customer...any more than Wal-Mart does because it serves millions of customers. In both instances, private individuals pay for their own services. If I go to buy a lawnmower, you don't subsidize that purchase through your taxes...just as you don't subsidize my purchase of insurance or my teeth cleaning.

With Medicaid/Medicare/SSI, etc., your taxes and mine do subsidize (or directly pay) for care for others. It's a general pooling of resources in which all do not pay equally or even proportionately (as with a "flat tax" system based upon the same percentage paid by all).

If you look up "socialism," you will find discussion of all types of socialist principles, not just "economic socialism." You'll find the same with "capitalism." The term is applied to economics, politics, social policies, religion, and all areas of life. As I understand it, it generally falls somewhere between capitalism and communism. Like the former, it allows for private ownership and accumulation of wealth; like the latter, it provides basic services to all through pooling of resources (while still allowing for different levels of income & property ownership). It doesn't have to be "government" hospitals and doctors to be funded according to socialist principles; if the private doctors & hospitals receive payment from the government for services, they're not operating under purely capitalistic principles. If that's not a form of socialism, what is it?

How is our welfare/social safety net system not an example of socialist principles?

[Edit: For example, when you say "universal health care," you're talking about to whom it will be provided and how it will be paid for, right? I mean, right now we have "universal health care" if it's just a matter of access to health care providing you have the means to pay for it. But that's not what the term means. It means "health care provided for all regardless of your ability to pay"...as you yourself have said, treating health care as a right to be provided by the government to all citizens. That's socialism regardless of how you slice it.]
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 07:00 AM   #391
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Well, thanks for answering, but I think you're missing a distinction.

A private insurance company does not represent "socialism" just because it serves more than one customer...any more than Wal-Mart does because it serves millions of customers. In both instances, private individuals pay for their own services. If I go to buy a lawnmower, you don't subsidize that purchase through your taxes...just as you don't subsidize my purchase of insurance or my teeth cleaning.

With Medicaid/Medicare/SSI, etc., your taxes and mine do subsidize (or directly pay) for care for others. It's a general pooling of resources in which all do not pay equally or even proportionately (as with a "flat tax" system based upon the same percentage paid by all).

If you look up "socialism," you will find discussion of all types of socialist principles, not just "economic socialism." You'll find the same with "capitalism." The term is applied to economics, politics, social policies, religion, and all areas of life. As I understand it, it generally falls somewhere between capitalism and communism. Like the former, it allows for private ownership and accumulation of wealth; like the latter, it provides basic services to all through pooling of resources (while still allowing for different levels of income & property ownership). It doesn't have to be "government" hospitals and doctors to be funded according to socialist principles; if the private doctors & hospitals receive payment from the government for services, they're not operating under purely capitalistic principles. If that's not a form of socialism, what is it?

How is our welfare/social safety net system not an example of socialist principles?

[Edit: For example, when you say "universal health care," you're talking about to whom it will be provided and how it will be paid for, right? I mean, right now we have "universal health care" if it's just a matter of access to health care providing you have the means to pay for it. But that's not what the term means. It means "health care provided for all regardless of your ability to pay"...as you yourself have said, treating health care as a right to be provided by the government to all citizens. That's socialism regardless of how you slice it.]
I'm not following the distinction. All insurance is pooling money and thus my premiums do in fact go to help pay for your teeth cleaning. Tho a more clear example, everyone who buys dental insurance pays a little for the few people that have cavities.

The easier example is obviously auto insurance. Everyone buys from Geico. Everyone pays a premium. But that premiums is not the same for everyone is it? The 18 year old pay more than a 50 year old. But that 18 year old did not pay enough to Geico for "only" his money to be used if he totals his car. Thus everyone else's money, no matter how much or little they paid goes to replace the 18 year old's car.

I "think" your trying to say the same thing that politian said about Jimmy Kimmels son. That others should have to pay for his son's care. But that is by definition how insurance works. "Jimmy Kimmel" could not alone pay enough premium dollars to cover his son only using his money. And not everyone pays the same premium. Smokers pay more.

And yes, my premiums for health insurance do in fact help "subsidize" yours. It works on the principle of large numbers. It's one reason group insurance is cheaper than individual. A small business owner with 50 employees can get insurance cheaper than an individual can. And the Fortune 500 company can buy insurance cheaper yet. Yes, there are other factors, but the numbers are the biggest as the insurance company can "spread the risk".

Nothing changes if you take the insurance company out and have the government be the insurance company. Well nothing changes except now, you have taken the 15%-20% profit and overhead out of the equation. Now you can do standardized processing for efficiency. Now the power of the goverment can ask "why is a MRI, more expensive today than when the technology was new?" "And why are MRI's much cheaper outside the USA".
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 07:26 AM   #392
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

I think you're mixing the way insurance companies work with the percent of the population covered.

Private insurance only covers those who pay premiums. While it is true that part of insurance payouts come from premiums paid by those who don't file for a payout, in theory every customer is entitled to a return on their premium (in fact, certain types of insurance guarantee a return in the future if the insurance isn't used). Regardless of the source of the payout...whether through premiums of other customers or through investments made from those premiums...the only ones receiving the benefit are the customers (or victims of accidents caused by those customers). The general public does not receive any benefit.

That's the way insurance works. If they simply said, "Pay us a premium, and if something adverse happens to you, we'll return the exact amount you pay," there would be no benefit except for those who can't discipline themselves enough to set money aside for lean times. Instead, insurance companies can only stay in business as long as a certain percentage of their customers don't actually use the product. The companies do statistical analyses to determine the likelihood of payouts based upon age, income & job status, number of people in the insurance pool, geography, the state of the economy, and a host of other factors. It's the same way with stock investments with "guaranteed" incomes. The higher the risk, the higher the reward...or downside. That's just a business model. It's not "socialism" because it only provides services to those who pay for them. And the service offered includes the possibility that you will receive more in payouts than your premiums. Of course, there's also the chance that you will receive absolutely nothing. That's the irony: You're paying for a product that you hope you will never have to use.

Private insurance is not socialism. Government insurance in the form of social/safety net programs is an example of socialism since it covers all citizens and is paid by all (those who pay taxes).

One other important distinction being ignored is that purchase of private insurance is totally voluntary. You want to take the risk, fine...you don't have to buy insurance. But government programs are not "voluntary" (despite Harry Reid's assertion that it is given that you have the "choice" to pay or go to jail). You choose to sign up with State Farm even if your money will be invested to pay off stockholders/customers. You don't choose whether your taxes will fund government programs.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 07:58 AM   #393
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I think you're mixing the way insurance companies work with the percent of the population covered.

Private insurance only covers those who pay premiums. While it is true that part of insurance payouts come from premiums paid by those who don't file for a payout, in theory every customer is entitled to a return on their premium (in fact, certain types of insurance guarantee a return in the future if the insurance isn't used). Regardless of the source of the payout...whether through premiums of other customers or through investments made from those premiums...the only ones receiving the benefit are the customers (or victims of accidents caused by those customers). The general public does not receive any benefit.

That's the way insurance works. If they simply said, "Pay us a premium, and if something adverse happens to you, we'll return the exact amount you pay," there would be no benefit except for those who can't discipline themselves enough to set money aside for lean times. Instead, insurance companies can only stay in business as long as a certain percentage of their customers don't actually use the product. The companies do statistical analyses to determine the likelihood of payouts based upon age, income & job status, number of people in the insurance pool, geography, the state of the economy, and a host of other factors. It's the same way with stock investments with "guaranteed" incomes. The higher the risk, the higher the reward...or downside. That's just a business model. It's not "socialism" because it only provides services to those who pay for them. And the service offered includes the possibility that you will receive more in payouts than your premiums. Of course, there's also the chance that you will receive absolutely nothing. That's the irony: You're paying for a product that you hope you will never have to use.

Private insurance is not socialism. Government insurance in the form of social/safety net programs is an example of socialism since it covers all citizens and is paid by all (those who pay taxes).

One other important distinction being ignored is that purchase of private insurance is totally voluntary. You want to take the risk, fine...you don't have to buy insurance. But government programs are not "voluntary" (despite Harry Reid's assertion that it is given that you have the "choice" to pay or go to jail). You choose to sign up with State Farm even if your money will be invested to pay off stockholders/customers. You don't choose whether your taxes will fund government programs.
There are certain life insurance policies that are refundable (or used for investment) but I know of no property/casualty that does. Some use a "rebate" but that is mainly a gimmick.

Ok, I get what your saying. I think. However, if you take it to the next step what happens? If I'm in a serious car accident and the ambulance comes, do they check to see if I have insurance? Nope. They take me to the ER and at the very least provide life saving measures. And if it turns out I had no insurance and can't pay the bill then your taxes help cover the loss.

And while I get your point, it it is technically not true. Lots of people can get benefits under a private insurance policy even if they themselves don't have coverage. On auto insurance you as a passenger would be covered under my policy while I'm driving in my car. Regardless if you have auto insurance yourself. If I have an at fault accident my insurance will pay the other driver even if they don't have coverage. If I'm cutting down my big oak tree and it falls on the neighbors house, my home insurance will cover their damage. Even if they don't have insurance. If I'm making dinner in my apartment and leave the stove on and a fire damages my neighbors apartment, my insurance will cover them. So there are lots of example of people who can get benefit of private insurance without buying it. Yet we don't call that socialism.

We are already there. We don't allow people to die in the streets. We help them regardless of their ability to pay. So why not formalize it and gain from it?

I think we are playing semantics. Personally I don't care what its called it. Personally I don't believe a single payer is a socialistic system in the way we are talking. I think the VA is much more so. As mentioned the most progrssive (Bernie?) is talking a single payer with private health providers.

My only issue is having to address the guy that thinks it's a Communist Plot....lo
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 08:14 AM   #394
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,237
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

That's been my point all along. It's a matter of semantics. As you said, Dems should own the tax issues as necessary and good. Likewise, they shouldn't run from the "socialist" label but instead point to "socialist" countries having policies similar to what Dems propose and point out the benefits. At least, IMO.

One (or two) points about the insurance.

You say that the ambulance will take people to the hospital and then figure out the bills. That is accurate, but that is because of the choice we have made that makes our policies inconsistent. The fire department that let the house burn because the homeowner refused to pay the annual volunteer fire dept. fee (or whatever) were actually being consistent. Not saying that was the right thing to do...just saying that they were being consistent. I actually agree with the point that we are being schizophrenic in saying that people must pay for health care yet allowing them to not purchase insurance but to rely upon the ER. States can require drivers to purchase insurance (of course, people can argue that leaves the choice of driving or not driving up to the citizen. In contrast, people can't choose not to breathe or exist without committing suicide; therefore, they can't logically refuse to buy insurance if they expect to receive ER treatment).

You mention people receiving benefits from insurance if they are passengers, neighbors, etc. But that is actually a benefit to the customer who purchased the premium. Without insurance, the passenger/neighbor could sue the potential customer. They still can, but at least a portion of the cost to the driver/tree owner will be covered by insurance. In other words, both the policy owner and the victim receive a monetary benefit. In the case of health insurance, I don't receive any tangible benefit when you receive treatment. I may get the intangible benefit of seeing you get help, but that's not what we're talking about. I would get that regardless of whether I paid into the treatment through taxes, insurance, donations, whatever.

So you can't really count the victim payout as separate apart from the policy owner benefit. When you purchase collision insurance, that's covering YOU from lawsuits against your assets. The recipient of the payout is not the primary reason for its inclusion in the policy...it's to protect the policy owner.
__________________
"With all due respect, the forum is unusable and people are abandoning it, largely due to creekdipper's posts and people's reactions to them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 10:02 AM   #395
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 52,539
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

A single payer system isn't socialist. All that's changing is who is collecting the healthcare prepayments. The means of production, being in this case healthcare (hospitals, doctors, nurses, equipment, pharmaceuticals) are all still privately owned.

I would absolutely be in favor of actual socialization/nationalization of our entire healthcare system. Pharmaceuticals for profit are a pox on this world.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Check out my vinyl collection!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-17, 12:26 PM   #396
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 23,893
Re: What changes are needed in the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
That's been my point all along. It's a matter of semantics. As you said, Dems should own the tax issues as necessary and good. Likewise, they shouldn't run from the "socialist" label but instead point to "socialist" countries having policies similar to what Dems propose and point out the benefits. At least, IMO.

One (or two) points about the insurance.

You say that the ambulance will take people to the hospital and then figure out the bills. That is accurate, but that is because of the choice we have made that makes our policies inconsistent. The fire department that let the house burn because the homeowner refused to pay the annual volunteer fire dept. fee (or whatever) were actually being consistent. Not saying that was the right thing to do...just saying that they were being consistent. I actually agree with the point that we are being schizophrenic in saying that people must pay for health care yet allowing them to not purchase insurance but to rely upon the ER. States can require drivers to purchase insurance (of course, people can argue that leaves the choice of driving or not driving up to the citizen. In contrast, people can't choose not to breathe or exist without committing suicide; therefore, they can't logically refuse to buy insurance if they expect to receive ER treatment).

You mention people receiving benefits from insurance if they are passengers, neighbors, etc. But that is actually a benefit to the customer who purchased the premium. Without insurance, the passenger/neighbor could sue the potential customer. They still can, but at least a portion of the cost to the driver/tree owner will be covered by insurance. In other words, both the policy owner and the victim receive a monetary benefit. In the case of health insurance, I don't receive any tangible benefit when you receive treatment. I may get the intangible benefit of seeing you get help, but that's not what we're talking about. I would get that regardless of whether I paid into the treatment through taxes, insurance, donations, whatever.

So you can't really count the victim payout as separate apart from the policy owner benefit. When you purchase collision insurance, that's covering YOU from lawsuits against your assets. The recipient of the payout is not the primary reason for its inclusion in the policy...it's to protect the policy owner.
Well I think we are venturing way off topic. And I hate digging up all my CPCU memories.

Insurance is a risk management tool. That's it. So your individual risk tolerance plays a factor.

Most experts would tell you, you should insure against the costly but rare situations. And that things that are low cost should not be insured (just pay them yourself). As for things that happen frequently, you should not insure, but change the situation.

That is one issue with health insurance. People want it to cover all. And it probably should. Meaning it should cover the low cost annual physical and the expensive cancer treatment. It should cover when you have the common cold as well as when you pneumonia.

But as I've previously mentioned the federal government could have a huge role in overall health. What if going to a gym and/or documenting that you work out 5 days a week save you another 10% on your insurance/taxes? What if the taxes on cigarettes and sugar drinks actually went to healthcare to keep premiums down? What if the medical payment premiums you pay now under auto and home went to help keep health insurance rates down?

So health insurance is a bit different.

But back to the topic at hand, I firmly believe the DNC could run on single payer platform and kick some a$$. The GOP really showed how disfunctional they are. If the Dem's could mount a unified front...

Last edited by Sdallnct; 08-08-17 at 12:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0