achilles return

us politics and elections thread

3,000 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

It isn't a tax. It is a premium. Plenty of UHC systems in other countries have out of pocket costs. 

"It's a penalty, not a tax."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GEORGIAfan said:

MBAAGKi.png

 

It is a premium. 

I can tell you how many people are going to buy that line when 10% of their monthly income goes to the government to pay for the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

I can tell you how many people are going to buy that line when 10% of their monthly income goes to the government to pay for the program.

0 people. Cap is at 9.69%, so no one will be paying 10% of their income to pay for the program. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for other countries having cost sharing:

I know some countries have copays. I also know that most of them make them flat rates regardless of the reason for the visit. Germany, for example, has a flat rate of €10 per quarter. M4Am mentions copayments but does not mention reining them in or eliminating them (looked extensively for this) which makes it a safe assumption that copayments here will continue to range from ~$20-$300 per visit.

I can't think of any other country that has deductibles for people to access a public program, let alone one that would run individuals making the equivalent of $30,000 up to $1,000 just to get the public insurance to start kicking in.

I can't think of any country that tries to a sleight of hand of trying to say that taxes are actually penalties or premiums just because their politicians don't have the nuts to say that they need to raise taxes.

The framing you're trying to push is disingenuous and people will be able to sniff it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

As for other countries having cost sharing:

I know some countries have copays. I also know that most of them make them flat rates regardless of the reason for the visit. Germany, for example, has a flat rate of €10 per quarter. M4Am mentions copayments but does not mention reining them in or eliminating them (looked extensively for this) which makes it a safe assumption that copayments here will continue to range from ~$20-$300 per visit.

I can't think of any other country that has deductibles for people to access a public program, let alone one that would run individuals making the equivalent of $30,000 up to $1,000 just to get the public insurance to start kicking in.

I can't think of any country that tries to a sleight of hand of trying to say that taxes are actually penalties or premiums just because their politicians don't have the nuts to say that they need to raise taxes.

The framing you're trying to push is disingenuous and people will be able to sniff it out.

1

Where are you making up these numbers from? Even if you get hit with the full deductible, it is 350 for individuals and 500 for families, which only happens if you make over 72k as an individual or 150k for a family of four. No one would pay 1000 before public insurance hit. Also preventative and chronic diseases services as defined by USPSTF, as well as generic drugs, are 100% free. 

They aren't taxes or penalties. They are premiums. You pay them to get health insurance. Not sure if it is M4Am, but Medicare Extra does give people rebates if they get a Medicare Advantage plan that is cheaper than their premiums. 

We only know the outline because it is the job of the Secretary to set these rates. It is possible it will have zero copays and only coinsurance/deductibles. We also will not know how generous the subsidies will be. Gaba's numbers are just guesstimates based on a linear scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Where are you making up these numbers from? Even if you get hit with the full deductible, it is 350 for individuals and 500 for families, which only happens if you make over 72k as an individual or 150k for a family of four. No one would pay 1000 before public insurance hit. Also preventative and chronic diseases services as defined by USPSTF, as well as generic drugs, are 100% free. 

They aren't taxes or penalties. They are premiums. You pay them to get health insurance. Not sure if it is M4Am, but Medicare Extra does give people rebates if they get a Medicare Advantage plan that is cheaper than their premiums. 

We only know the outline because it is the job of the Secretary to set these rates. It is possible it will have zero copays and only coinsurance/deductibles. We also will not know how generous the subsidies will be. Gaba's numbers are just guesstimates based on a linear scale. 

Microsoft%20ExcelScreenSnapz2661.jpg?ito

Probably should have included other out of pocket expenses in the other post, but whatever.

People are not going to interpret tax increases for a public program as premiums. You can say that until you're blue in the face but that is not how they're going to interpret it. They didn't with the mandate penalty and they aren't with this. A tax is a tax. The electorate isn't stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Microsoft%20ExcelScreenSnapz2661.jpg?ito

Probably should have included other out of pocket expenses in the other post, but whatever.

People are not going to interpret tax increases for a public program as premiums. You can say that until you're blue in the face but that is not how they're going to interpret it. They didn't with the mandate penalty and they aren't with this. A tax is a tax. The electorate isn't stupid.

Those numbers do not match up with your claim. 30k is 247% FPL. Meaning their deductible would be  35 dollars. So they would pay 35 dollars before insurance kicked in.  Their out of pocket max would be 350 dollars. No where near your claim of 1000 dollars. Their total potential yearly cost is 950 when you include out of pocket max and the premium. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really desperate to paint this as a tax, but it isn't and the American people will agree. It is a premium. You pay it and get healthcare services. 

Medicare for America does raise taxes, but premiums are not taxes. 

If you have employer insurance. You do not pay premiums. 

Just because the government collects it doesn't make it a tax. Does paying an entrance fee at national parks and museums  count as taxes now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Those numbers do not match up with your claim. 30k is 247% FPL. Meaning their deductible would be  35 dollars. So they would pay 35 dollars before insurance kicked in.  Their out of pocket max would be 350 dollars. No where near your claim of 1000 dollars. Their total potential yearly cost is 950 when you include out of pocket max and the premium. 

 

 

$36,000. Happy?

19 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

You are really desperate to paint this as a tax, but it isn't and the American people will agree. It is a premium. You pay it and get healthcare services. 

Medicare for America does raise taxes, but premiums are not taxes. 

If you have employer insurance. You do not pay premiums. 

Just because the government collects it doesn't make it a tax. Does paying an entrance fee at national parks and museums  count as taxes now?

Dems thought the same thing about the mandate penalty. It was viewed as a tax by the public and interpreted as a tax by the Supreme Court. It would be better for everyone involved if you, and other M4Am advocates, would call a spade a spade to start with because it will lead to repercussions if it isn't down the line if this is implemented.

Also, premiums aren't an entry fee. That'd be more akin to the out of pocket costs. Rather, premiums are the taxes that keep the national parks and museums open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

$36,000. Happy?

 

 

3 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I can't think of any other country that has deductibles for people to access a public program, let alone one that would run individuals making the equivalent of $30,000 up to $1,000 just to get the public insurance to start kicking in.

Your claim was that people would pay 1,000 deductible.  No one on that chart pays a 1000 deductible. Deductibles are capped at 350 individual and 500 families. Max out of pocket is the point at which public insurance pays 100% prior to that amount it pays 80% with the patient paying 20%. Maybe you got the two confused. 

 

A person making 36000 would pay up to 3% of their income in premiums($1080). Have a deductible of 70 dollars and an out of pocket max of 700. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

Your claim was that people would pay 1,000 deductible.  No one on that chart pays a 1000 deductible. Deductibles are capped at 350 individual and 500 families. Max out of pocket is the point at which public insurance pays 100% prior to that amount it pays 80% with the patient paying 20%. Maybe you got the two confused. 

 

A person making 36000 would pay up to 3% of their income in premiums($1080). Have a deductible of 70 dollars and an out of pocket max of 700. 

 

Already acknowledged that I should have included other out of pocket costs in that post.

According to them they'd pay 3-4%, $105, $1,050... Unless you're just being extremely pedantic about the salary number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Already acknowledged that I should have included other out of pocket costs in that post.

According to them they'd pay 3-4%, $105, $1,050... Unless you're just being extremely pedantic about the salary number.

1

I knew the FPL(12140 individual) off the top of my head. I looked it up for the 72k figure I have been quoting. If you want to call that being pedantic, then fine. It would be easier to just use percentages.  

Even using the numbers you provided, a Person making 36000 would have a yearly cap of 2130(1050 mOOP + 3% premium) in healthcare costs. That is less than 6% of their salary. No matter how you slice it, that is extremely affordable. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have been saying Booker has the strongest potential. What is happening nationally doesn't matter. Locally Booker is building a top tier team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

 

She also spent the most money the past few weeks in ads. She spent over 100k in facebook ads during he launch week. She spent over 1.2 million on ads during 2018 when she was not even on the ballot. 

source:https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-2020-launch-is-the-best-by-far

 

I feel like her strategy is to out viral everyone else to become the de facto candidate for black and women voters. I dont blame her, especially in trying to box out Booker. They basically have the same strategy. Win/Overperform in IA or NH, then crush it with black voters in SC and cruise through Super Tuesday. Kamala also wants to add winning Cali as an exclamation point to her nomination, but basically same strategy. 

I don't think it is a terrible strategy, but I think 2020 is going to be a long campaign and drowning everyone out nationally doesn't really mean much when there isn't a national primary. I also think it could lead to burnout. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://features.desmoinesregister.com/news/politics/50-most-wanted/election-2020-iowa-caucus-democrats-key-people-to-know-presidential-influencers-campaign-staff

DMR posted their top 50 Dems for IA 2020. Interesting to where these people are falling as candidates announce their 2020 staff. 

Warren seems like the big winner getting 3 people from the staffer/operatives group running her IA campaign. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/02/warren-iowa-staff-1077881

Booker is next with 2 people from that group and was connected to two other people. 

Quote

"If I were a young staff type, operative type, I would find this campaign enormously attractive," said Jerry Crawford, a veteran Iowa Democratic activist who is currently neutral, but has counseled Booker and other would-be candidates. "This one has the look and feel to me of a potential winner."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/cory-booker-2020-campaign-taking-shape/index.html

Gillibrand has 1 person from that section.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/01/28/kirsten-gillibrand-iowa-staff-2020-lara-henderson-rachel-irwin-state-director-president-democrat/2695679002/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now