SezMe
post-pre-born
Maybe. Profit incentive also motivates efficiencies that are not necessarily there for a government administered system.
Whose efficiencies? Doctors? Clinics? Hospitals? Insurance companies?
Maybe. Profit incentive also motivates efficiencies that are not necessarily there for a government administered system.
I feel like, after 2016, we should only be citing polls that called 2016 for Trump.
Maybe it is pathological; on the other hand I associate Midwesterners with niceness ... maybe that's just who he is.
Maybe. Profit incentive also motivates efficiencies that are not necessarily there for a government administered system.
If we had to bet on two scenarios which is more efficient, and one had a financial motive to be efficient and the other didn't, I'm going to bet on the profit motive.
This is a separate issue of cost controls from size of negotiating power.
Whose efficiencies? Doctors? Clinics? Hospitals? Insurance companies?
I'm curious if Warren is going to hold off throwing her support behind Sanders past the point it could lock things up for their progressive wing. I'm guessing yes.
Polls don't make "calls". They give a snapshot of voter sentiment. Now, pundits may draw conclusions from polling data, but that is not the poll doing the calling.
Private healthcare is very efficient at denying services to their most expensive consumers. Those that get seriously ill are ground into submission by high copays, high deductibles, and high premiums. Eventually they run out of money and get kicked off their plans, saving the insurer bundles of money.
Medical debt is the most commonly cited reason for bankruptcy in the United States. Most of these cases involve people who are insured.
Insurance through an employer is private insurance. Depending on the company that is fixed premiums
Good thing sick people never get fired for missing work for long periods of time.
My wife and I are both covered through my employer's plan. If it get seriously ill or disabled, it's a ticking clock until I've exhausted my short and long term leave. Once that's over, I get fired. At that point, I can continue my coverage through COBRA so long as I pay 100% of the premium, which is quite pricey. Considering I am not able to earn an income, I drain my savings to cover my premium and high deductible until I either get better, die, or run out of money and can no longer pay my premium.
The underlying fault of the employer provided insurance plan is obvious. It assumes that an individual will remain able to work.
All week long, the story has been the rise of Pete Buttigieg to co-frontrunner status with Bernie Sanders. The latest exclusive WBZ/Boston Globe/Suffolk University tracking poll shows they’re still co-leaders within the poll’s 4.4% margin of error, with Sanders holding steady at 24% and Buttigieg slipping a bit to 22%.
Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden remain static in third and fourth places with 13% and 10% respectively.
But now there’s another candidate on a bit of a roll.
Amy Klobuchar is right behind Biden now at 9%, up three points over Friday night. She appears to be the only candidate to get a boost from Friday’s debate, with two-thirds of the poll taken during and after that event.
I'm back to believing, sad as it is, that socialism makes such an easy target for Trump and the GOP, that we are taking a huge chance if either Warren or Sanders is the nominee. And they can't see it. They believe in their revolutions. If only a bunch of voters would rise up. Steyer says the same, sigh, that "we can do it because the voters will stand up."
I'm very disappointed Sanders and Warren are attacking Bloomberg, not on his stand on the policies, but rather on the fact he's an 'evil' billionaire. Their whole schtick is to blame the 1%, lump them altogether despite the fact there are a few good philanthropists among them.
They should instead be courting Bloomberg's money for key Senate races.
We are at a serious disadvantage. Attacking both Bloomberg and Steyer because they are billionaires makes both Sanders and Warren look petty. It's one thing to attack the collective 1%. It's one thing to attack the nameless bankers and corporate heads. But why attack individuals that may not fit in that collective group?
Then we have Party leader Perez who is incompetent.
This is looking very risky. We could have that corrupt piece of **** in office for 4 more years.
But Republicans have been characterizing all welfare state expansion as socialism forever, which may have somewhat deadened the argument as a message.
Alternatively, it’s possible that the socialism label is effective but the Sanders counter-message in this poll about taxing billionaires is also effective.
No one was disputing this.
Of course. But with Sanders and Warren it sticks more.I agree with everything you say, with the caveat that the Republicans will tar ANY Dem candidate with the socialist label.
That's encouraging since Sanders has a good chance of winning the primary.
You commented about fixed premiums. Yes, they are fixed and often mostly paid by the employer. A sick employee that gets fired will find themselves facing a dramatic premium rise as their former employer is no longer paying the lion's share.
Private insurance becomes dramatically more expensive at exactly the worst time for someone who is facing long-term, debilitating illness.
And sadly, I don't think Mayor Pete is electable. Too many people not ready for a gay president.