Yeah, who could forget how hard the donor class has been working to protect the ACA against people trying to get rid of it, because of how much they love it.
Wait
I feel like maybe something else has been happening. Help me out?
I feel like there’s no way you read my entire post in the 4 minutes since I posted but
The donor class wants to protect the flawed ACA because the benefits it brings, like protections against pre existing health conditions, are important. I said as much. They also don’t want to walk back what they see as the only bit of progress that has occurred, which is understandable
But do they really “love it”? This is battered partner syndrome. American health care is abusive. We can’t possibly love this. But we are so entrenched in this garbage system of administrative waste and obnoxiously overpaid staff that do not bill we cannot envision a better future
Early in her campaign Kamala co opted Medicare for all and described her proposal. On one hand it was nice to see someone finally describe healthcare reform again (though she was silent for the rest of her campaign). But on the other much worse hand her system was horrible, continuing the system of privatized Medicare with a 2 lane system. Basic Medicare for all Americans but premium Medicare via private companies if you had the means. This is an improvement, for sure, but ultimately it is the ACA and all of its flaws all over again. Excessive administrative overhead raising complexity and costs significantly, a 2 lane system creating a class divide and confusion for consumers as providers will not all work for everyone, and a return of the individual mandate via taxation (which to be fair is necessary, we need young healthy people paying in, but it’s not fair if it results in them getting substandard insurance again to fund the plans of the rich!)
The ACA and Kamala’s proposal, which is a more aggressive version of it co-opting Sanders terminology that polled well, is class warfare. The donor class works to defend it because they do not realize they are being sold a pittance and that they need to demand more
I feel like there’s no way you read my entire post in the 4 minutes since I posted but
I did not, no. I got enough of the flavor. Do you want a more detailed rebuttal?
I saw enough things in it that were the opposite of reality, that you were just saying because they matched the feels of the conclusion you wanted to reach, that I felt like I was safe in not exposing myself to the whole thing. I’ve now read the whole thing, and my conclusion was completely correct. I actually was a little bit surprised by how many wrong things you had to say.
But the individual mandate with no financial assistance was tone deaf at best and corrupt at worst. People who were uninsured were uninsured because they couldn’t afford it, not because they thought it was cool to not buy health insurance. Now they were forced into a position of buying expensive coverage or penalized financially for not doing so.
The whole point was to force people who could afford health insurance to pay into the system, to subsidize the people who couldn’t afford it.
I would bet at least some trump voters are disgruntled people that are still furious that despite being barely able to get by their government forced them to spend $3-400 a month on a bullshit health plan that covered nothing because it still had a $4000 deductible
Many Trump voters are poor people who are dependent on the subsidized health care that the ACA provides them, which they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own.
I would buy the whole “this was a compromise on the path to something better” if there was any movement whatsoever on healthcare reform since. The ACA was fifteen years ago. I work with high schoolers that are older than the ACA.
The movement on health care that there’s been since then has been Republicans trying over and over again to repeal it. You mentioned this. You also mentioned some small but significant movement that the Democrats have been doing, although I completely agree with you that they don’t have the stones to break with their corporate backers and actually make something good.
The donor class wants to protect the flawed ACA because the benefits it brings, like protections against pre existing health conditions, are important. I said as much
You misunderstood my sarcasm. “Donor class” to me means the corporate interests who dominate elections, not the ordinary people. The donor class hates the ACA. That’s why the more-corrupted wing of the US government keeps trying to repeal it. The Democrats don’t want to do that, because even as corrupted as they are, they are a little bit beholden to the voters.
Trump voters who lose their health care will somehow blame the Democrats. Democratic voters who lose their health care will also blame the Democrats.
My argument here is that if the ACA was such an across-the-board win for the corporate class, they wouldn’t be trying so repeatedly or so hard to repeal it. They were doing fine before the ACA, and they’re still doing fine now, with it. But, it’s interfering in some ways to refuse to provide health care when it wouldn’t be profitable, and it also sets a little bit of a precedent that people have a right to health care (even if I agree with you it doesn’t go nearly far enough in that regard and still makes sure to carve out huge profits for the insurance companies at the expense of sick people), and both of those things, they really don’t like. That’s what I was saying through my sarcasm.
But do they really “love it”? This is battered partner syndrome. American health care is abusive. We can’t possibly love this. But we are so entrenched in this garbage system of administrative waste and obnoxiously overpaid staff that do not bill we cannot envision a better future
Again, you misunderstood my sarcasm. I was saying (sarcastically) that the donor class loves the ACA. They do not. Obviously, every non-corporate person involved in American health care on an personal level also hates American health care, but I’m saying that is independent of the ACA and getting rid of the ACA would do nothing to help it, and would in fact make it somehow even worse, which is why the donor class wants to do that.
Early in her campaign Kamala co opted Medicare for all and described her proposal. On one hand it was nice to see someone finally describe healthcare reform again (though she was silent for the rest of her campaign). But on the other much worse hand her system was horrible, continuing the system of privatized Medicare with a 2 lane system. Basic Medicare for all Americans but premium Medicare via private companies if you had the means. This is an improvement, for sure, but ultimately it is the ACA and all of its flaws all over again.
Can you link me to Kamala Harris’s proposal? I wasn’t even aware she had said anything of substance on health care. On the other hand, it hardly matters. Yes, doing Sanders-style actual human health care would be far better.
First I misunderstood “donor class”. I feel a bit silly. I interpreted as a class of people making small donations but it’s so obvious in retrospect and obviously I’ve seen this term used before. My reply is basically backwards as a result. Whoops
Financial assistance was woefully inadequate because it was mostly based on federally defined poverty guidelines (and still is). This, like the minimum wage, is not tied to inflation and is adjusted irregularly
As stated I understand the point of forcing people into the system to subsidize care. I do not think that it is fair to give them substandard insurance to benefit an elder generation that has higher rates of retirement savings, home ownership, Medicare enrollment, etc.
simply put the individual mandate does not work if it is contingent on giving the youngest generation garbage coverage in exchange for their premiums. Kamala’s proposal continued this
The donor class (im using it correctly now, hooray. I did misunderstand) greatly benefitted from the ACA. This does not mean they would not also benefit from its repeal. Both can be true. They benefitted in the short term from increased subscription rates but they would benefit in the long term from decreased regulatory oversight.
Yeah, who could forget how hard the donor class has been working to protect the ACA against people trying to get rid of it, because of how much they love it.
Wait
I feel like maybe something else has been happening. Help me out?
I feel like there’s no way you read my entire post in the 4 minutes since I posted but
The donor class wants to protect the flawed ACA because the benefits it brings, like protections against pre existing health conditions, are important. I said as much. They also don’t want to walk back what they see as the only bit of progress that has occurred, which is understandable
But do they really “love it”? This is battered partner syndrome. American health care is abusive. We can’t possibly love this. But we are so entrenched in this garbage system of administrative waste and obnoxiously overpaid staff that do not bill we cannot envision a better future
Early in her campaign Kamala co opted Medicare for all and described her proposal. On one hand it was nice to see someone finally describe healthcare reform again (though she was silent for the rest of her campaign). But on the other much worse hand her system was horrible, continuing the system of privatized Medicare with a 2 lane system. Basic Medicare for all Americans but premium Medicare via private companies if you had the means. This is an improvement, for sure, but ultimately it is the ACA and all of its flaws all over again. Excessive administrative overhead raising complexity and costs significantly, a 2 lane system creating a class divide and confusion for consumers as providers will not all work for everyone, and a return of the individual mandate via taxation (which to be fair is necessary, we need young healthy people paying in, but it’s not fair if it results in them getting substandard insurance again to fund the plans of the rich!)
The ACA and Kamala’s proposal, which is a more aggressive version of it co-opting Sanders terminology that polled well, is class warfare. The donor class works to defend it because they do not realize they are being sold a pittance and that they need to demand more
I did not, no. I got enough of the flavor. Do you want a more detailed rebuttal?
I saw enough things in it that were the opposite of reality, that you were just saying because they matched the feels of the conclusion you wanted to reach, that I felt like I was safe in not exposing myself to the whole thing. I’ve now read the whole thing, and my conclusion was completely correct. I actually was a little bit surprised by how many wrong things you had to say.
Except there is financial assistance if you can’t afford it.
The whole point was to force people who could afford health insurance to pay into the system, to subsidize the people who couldn’t afford it.
Many Trump voters are poor people who are dependent on the subsidized health care that the ACA provides them, which they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own.
The movement on health care that there’s been since then has been Republicans trying over and over again to repeal it. You mentioned this. You also mentioned some small but significant movement that the Democrats have been doing, although I completely agree with you that they don’t have the stones to break with their corporate backers and actually make something good.
You misunderstood my sarcasm. “Donor class” to me means the corporate interests who dominate elections, not the ordinary people. The donor class hates the ACA. That’s why the more-corrupted wing of the US government keeps trying to repeal it. The Democrats don’t want to do that, because even as corrupted as they are, they are a little bit beholden to the voters.
Trump voters who lose their health care will somehow blame the Democrats. Democratic voters who lose their health care will also blame the Democrats.
My argument here is that if the ACA was such an across-the-board win for the corporate class, they wouldn’t be trying so repeatedly or so hard to repeal it. They were doing fine before the ACA, and they’re still doing fine now, with it. But, it’s interfering in some ways to refuse to provide health care when it wouldn’t be profitable, and it also sets a little bit of a precedent that people have a right to health care (even if I agree with you it doesn’t go nearly far enough in that regard and still makes sure to carve out huge profits for the insurance companies at the expense of sick people), and both of those things, they really don’t like. That’s what I was saying through my sarcasm.
Again, you misunderstood my sarcasm. I was saying (sarcastically) that the donor class loves the ACA. They do not. Obviously, every non-corporate person involved in American health care on an personal level also hates American health care, but I’m saying that is independent of the ACA and getting rid of the ACA would do nothing to help it, and would in fact make it somehow even worse, which is why the donor class wants to do that.
Can you link me to Kamala Harris’s proposal? I wasn’t even aware she had said anything of substance on health care. On the other hand, it hardly matters. Yes, doing Sanders-style actual human health care would be far better.
https://kamalaharris.medium.com/my-plan-for-medicare-for-all-7730370dd421
First I misunderstood “donor class”. I feel a bit silly. I interpreted as a class of people making small donations but it’s so obvious in retrospect and obviously I’ve seen this term used before. My reply is basically backwards as a result. Whoops
Financial assistance was woefully inadequate because it was mostly based on federally defined poverty guidelines (and still is). This, like the minimum wage, is not tied to inflation and is adjusted irregularly
As stated I understand the point of forcing people into the system to subsidize care. I do not think that it is fair to give them substandard insurance to benefit an elder generation that has higher rates of retirement savings, home ownership, Medicare enrollment, etc.
simply put the individual mandate does not work if it is contingent on giving the youngest generation garbage coverage in exchange for their premiums. Kamala’s proposal continued this
The donor class (im using it correctly now, hooray. I did misunderstand) greatly benefitted from the ACA. This does not mean they would not also benefit from its repeal. Both can be true. They benefitted in the short term from increased subscription rates but they would benefit in the long term from decreased regulatory oversight.
He is big mad about people calling ACA a dud now that we have a hindsight lol