What did Democrats do wrong?

[W.D.Clinger]

they had a chili cook off competition? am i reading that right?

OMFSM yes. But it has nothing to do with chili:

Q: Where do I bring my chili?
A: This is not a food competition. The “chili cook-off” element is for branding purposes only. Just like there are many ways to make chili, there are many ways to fight fraud. This competition is focused on discovering the most effective and innovative AI techniques for identifying fraud indicators within the Medicare program.

 

[Solitaire]

they had a chili cook off competition? am i reading that right?

Okay.
I've managed to find the FAQ that states it's not about a fiendish bean dish.
Man what confusing branding.

Crushing Fraud Chili Cook-Off Competition

Q: What is the CMS Crushing Fraud Chili Cook-Off Competition?
A: The Chili Cook-Off is a market-based research challenge hosted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The goal is to gain insight into innovative, cross-sector technologies that can help CMS stay ahead of emerging fraud threats to the Medicare program. CMS seeks proposals that harness explainable artificial intelligence (AI), specifically machine learning (ML) models, to identify anomalous patterns within Medicare claims data, translate detected patterns into indicators of fraud, and propose scalable analytic and policy solutions to address the identified indicators of fraud.

Q: Where do I bring my chili?
A: This is not a food competition. The “chili cook-off” element is for branding purposes only. Just like there are many ways to make chili, there are many ways to fight fraud. This competition is focused on discovering the most effective and innovative AI techniques for identifying fraud indicators within the Medicare program.

I would've named it something else entirely. Wait, there are no prizes? What! Why?

Q: What is the prize?
A: CMS will publicly recognize the 10 finalists and the Chili Cook-Off winner for their innovative solutions addressing Medicare fraud. Participants are welcome to leverage these innovations for any future contract bids that CMS announces.

At least it will be better than this contest.

Man Gets Selected To Be A Judge At Chili Cook Off

Chili # 1 – Mike’s Maniac Monster Chili

Judge # 1 — A little too heavy on the tomato. Amusing kick.
Judge # 2 — Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
Judge # 3 (Frank) — Holy crap, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that’s the worst one. These New Mexicans are crazy.

 

[ahhell]

Personally, I think the German model of Health is likely best for the US. Its actually not that different from ours, just better.

 

[dann]

Better for whom? For the U.S. or for ordinary Americans?
The U.S. model of health care is very good for shareholders and the politicians they buy.

 

[dann]

After Bill Maher complained about socialism allegedly ruining the chances of the Democratic Party every winning another election (see post 3,318), it is interesting to see that a "GOP strategist wants Republicans to abandon word 'capitalism'."

Republicans Go FULL PANIC After GOP Pollster Hits Them With The Bad News (The Damage Report on YouTube, Nov 16, 2025 - 9:13 min.)
Republicans get rocked with the bad news as GOP pollster Frank Luntz reveals their favorite word, capitalism, should be abandoned if they want to win upcoming elections, because the policies tied to it are leaving Americans stranded.
Read more here: Republican pollster warns GOP to abandon the word 'capitalism' - https://www.alternet.org/republicans-...
"Ronald Reagan Republican and GOP strategist Frank Luntz says the word “capitalism” has become a dirty word that Republicans must avoid if they want to win election in the aftermath of Zohran Mamdani.
With communication strategist Luntz, winning elections is primarily about messaging, and the word ”capitalism” is no longer a winning message as billionaire “capitalists” accrue most of the wealth and leave Americans worrying about their rent and food pantries. Just recently, the Top 10 U.S. billionaires’ collective wealth grew by nearly $700 billion and analysts warned government policies are driving inequality to new heights."

0:00--> Is capitalism now at long last a toxic word politically? Well, at least one Republican strategist, Frank Luntz, thinks that it just might be. He was recently talking about how the rise of Zohran Mamani in New York City might be indicating that running on capitalism as a concept might not be the great strategy that it once was. Take a look:

- Is it fair that some people's children will be born billionaires without having to work a day in their life, while others will work two or three jobs just to put food on their table and a roof over their heads?
Second, is it heard [?] that some schools have all the technology, all the resources, and others can't even afford books or chalk? Why do I do that ? Because you can see it, you can visualize it.
And third, does everyone in the sound of my voice, because I'm personalizing it, who works hard and plays by the rules, shouldn't they have a genuine shot at the American dream?

These are the questions that you ask at the beginning to bring audiences audiences over to you. And without asking those questions, you're cutting people out.

It is obvious that Luntz hasn't had a change of heart. He is still a Republican strategist and merely interested in 'bringing audiences over to the Republican Party'. He has no interest in actually listening to them or trying to do something for those people.
But unlike Bill Maher, he is actually smart enough to see that those questions, the ones asked by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani, are resonating with average Americans, and thus they are up for abuse by GOP strategists.
Bill Maher and Chuck Schumer will be shocked ed by this turn of events.

So what Luntz is suggesting is a mere name change for the same old same old:

2:12--> Go under age 30, and they prefer socialism to capitalism already. ... And we should be calling it economic freedom, not capitalism, because capitalism is about CEOs. It's about billionaires, and it's about Wall Street. Economic freedom is about Main Street, about the workforce, and about the opportunities for the future.

I doubt that those "under age 30" will believe him. The old farts - like Bill Maher - just might, but they are already onboard with MAGA GOP.

 

[plague311]

People with pre-existing conditions have always been able to get health care. They haven't always been able to buy low-cost individual health insurance.

I get that a whole lot of laypeople don't understand the distinction here, but it's actually pretty important. Doctors were always willing to provide care to people with pre-existing conditions... if they could pay for it. And employers haven't been allowed to deny insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions since before I was born. I'm not sure they ever could, but I wouldn't take a bet on the history of that particular detail. But when people are purchasing individual insurance, they're actively socializing their risk. Covering pre-existing conditions increases the cost for everyone in the pool. The individual with the known high cost exposure is shifting their own risk onto other people's pocketbooks. For all intents, it's like wanting to get homeowner's insurance after the house has caught fire. Or perhaps a little less extreme, wanting to get low-cost homeowner's insurance for a house that you already know has bad wiring, gas lines that are coming apart at the seems, and is built of untreated dried-out wood... and expecting that all the other homeowners who have good wiring, solid gas lines, and cement construction will foot the bill.

Welcome to living in a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ society. That's how it literally should work. Thanks for basically calling my dad and I broken down pieces of ◊◊◊◊ though. That's on-brand for you while you cry about how mean I am all of the time.

That's not to say that requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions is necessarily a bad thing. From a position of principle, I agree that it was one of the few good elements of ACA - but it came at a cost, and that cost was higher premiums for everyone in the entire individual market. I've been working in this field, specifically in individual market health insurance, since 2000. I watched it happen - it wasn't a surprise to any actuary. The average premium cost in 2014 increased considerably over the cost in 2013. A large portion of that was due to things like maternity, mental health, and comprehensive drug benefits being *required* in the plans. But some of it was very directly the result of guaranteed issue, community rated pricing requirements.

ACA hasn't slowed the COST of health care. Literally nothing at all in ACA addresses the cost side of the issue. Not a single thing. It has spread that increasing cost to other people to help foot the bill - including spreading it to taxpayers. But the underlying cost of services provided was unaffected by ACA, and has continued to rise at rates higher than general inflation.

Cool story, bro.

 

[bruto]

Unfortunately, Emily's Cat's position makes a certain sense in the context of our broken health care system in which health care depends on the purchase of insurance from competing providers. If health care were treated more as an overall public benefit, the argument would be more recognizable as resembling the idea that rich people should not be taxed for welfare nor childless people for schools. Actively socializing risk? Yeah, that's kind of what a society is for, outside of fiefdoms, gulags and post-apocalyptic ruins.

 

[plague311]

Unfortunately, Emily's Cat's position makes a certain sense in the context of our broken health care system in which health care depends on the purchase of insurance from competing providers. If health care were treated more as an overall public benefit, the argument would be more recognizable as resembling the idea that rich people should not be taxed for welfare nor childless people for schools. Actively socializing risk? Yeah, that's kind of what a society is for, outside of fiefdoms, gulags and post-apocalyptic ruins.

That's my point. Of course our healthcare system is broken. Deeply and beyond repair, but not because of Obamacare. The fact is Obamacare saved a lot of peoples' lives I would bet, just because of the pre-existing conditions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

From my personal experience, DH had a medical condition that put him in hospital to the tune of a quarter million dollars about 30 years ago; luckily insurance covered it. After he recovered and was released, AEtna dropped him and wouldn't let him sign up again. The only reason he is insured now is through my workplace insurance. That is a sample size of one, but I suggest it's not as uncommon as you think.

It wasn't uncommon in the past. It is uncommon now. Like I said, disallowing preexisting condition limits and exclusions was one of the good things ACA did.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Welcome to living in a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ society. That's how it literally should work. Thanks for basically calling my dad and I broken down pieces of ◊◊◊◊ though. That's on-brand for you while you cry about how mean I am all of the time.

I did no such thing, not even close. But thanks for reinforcing once again how completely bad faith your interactions are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unfortunately, Emily's Cat's position makes a certain sense in the context of our broken health care system in which health care depends on the purchase of insurance from competing providers. If health care were treated more as an overall public benefit, the argument would be more recognizable as resembling the idea that rich people should not be taxed for welfare nor childless people for schools. Actively socializing risk? Yeah, that's kind of what a society is for, outside of fiefdoms, gulags and post-apocalyptic ruins.

How the holy ◊◊◊◊ did you get to this absolute BS from my actual ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ position? Seriously, do you people just get off really hard on misinformation and ◊◊◊◊◊◊ argumentation full of falsehoods and ad hominems?

 

[plague311]

I did no such thing, not even close. But thanks for reinforcing once again how completely bad faith your interactions are.

How the holy ◊◊◊◊ did you get to this absolute BS from my actual ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ position? Seriously, do you people just get off really hard on misinformation and ◊◊◊◊◊◊ argumentation full of falsehoods and ad hominems?

You ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ equated my father and I, and by extension all people with pre-existing conditions that use the ACA, to people who are trying to get society to pay for their houses that aren't up to code. If you're too stupid to figure out how that's insulting then the very least you can do is save your nonsense about bad faith interactions. Perhaps choose your analogies better, but yeah, as per usual it's always everyone else and never you.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Pre-existing conditions" is American for what the rest of us just refer to as your medical history.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ equated my father and I, and by extension all people with pre-existing conditions that use the ACA, to people who are trying to get society to pay for their houses that aren't up to code. If you're too stupid to figure out how that's insulting then the very least you can do is save your nonsense about bad faith interactions. Perhaps choose your analogies better, but yeah, as per usual it's always everyone else and never you.

JFC, you decided to personalize that all by yourself, and got your own butt all hurt by what you imagined I meant.

People very frequently conflate health care with health insurance. I corrected your conflation. I explained why pre-existing condition limits were in place prior to ACA, and the role they served in keeping insurance premiums down.

And since you seem to have entirely missed it in your zeal to paint me as evil, I approve of ACA disallowing preexisting condition limits and exclusions! But that comes at a cost - it increase the premiums for health insurance.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

JFC, you decided to personalize that all by yourself, and got your own butt all hurt by what you imagined I meant.

People very frequently conflate health care with health insurance. I corrected your conflation. I explained why pre-existing condition limits were in place prior to ACA, and the role they served in keeping insurance premiums down.

And yet all universal health care systems cost less per person despite not having these limits.

All they do is push up the profit margin of the blood sucking insurance companies. Sure, you can argue that the insurance company will be incentivised to lower premiums because they don't have to pay for the higher cost patient, but the argument is disingenuous when you look at, for example the Dutch healthcare system.

The Dutch system is a system that covers everyone, but utilises private, for profit insurance firms. If the Dutch system can run a profit for these firms despite no "pre-existing condition limits" the only reason American insurers would have them is to inflate their profits while screwing over the people who need healthcare the most.

I understand that you are stating you like the fact the ACA removed those limits, but those limits were an evil feature of the US healthcare system.

ETA: For the record, I would be covered by some sort of insurance in the Netherlands because everyone is. In the USA I would be absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊. I am 38 and I can guarantee I have cost the NHS more money in my lifetime than my paternal grandparents combined, who both lived to 97.

 

[TomB]

And yet all universal health care systems cost less per person despite not having these limits.

All they do is push up the profit margin of the blood sucking insurance companies. Sure, you can argue that the insurance company will be incentivised to lower premiums because they don't have to pay for the higher cost patient, but the argument is disingenuous when you look at, for example the Dutch healthcare system.

The Dutch system is a system that covers everyone, but utilises private, for profit insurance firms. If the Dutch system can run a profit for these firms despite no "pre-existing condition limits" the only reason American insurers would have them is to inflate their profits while screwing over the people who need healthcare the most.

I understand that you are stating you like the fact the ACA removed those limits, but those limits were an evil feature of the US healthcare system.

ETA: For the record, I would be covered by some sort of insurance in the Netherlands because everyone is. In the USA I would be absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊. I am 38 and I can guarantee I have cost the NHS more money in my lifetime than my paternal grandparents combined, who both lived to 97.

Your comparison with the Dutch system stopped at insurance premiums. You didn't look at the cost of the claims that the insurance pays.
For the record, neither have I.

If the providers (doctors and hospitals) bill the same amount as U.S. doctors and hospitals, then you have a point. Assuming, of course, that the insurance provides a similar level of coverage and deductible, and that people in the Netherlands consume a similar amount and type of healthcare services as people in the U.S.

However, it is possible that doctors and hospitals don't charge the same or are government subsidized (I don't know that this is the case) resulting in lower claims and therefore lower premiums.

I don't know that I entirely agree with Emily's Cat on this topic, but you need to compare the cost of claims along with the cost of premiums before blaming insurance companies.

Also, from Wikipedia, I read this:

Private insurance companies are mandated to offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary curative care, which includes the cost of all prescription medicines, at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in the Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance or to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductibles, co-payments, or refuse to fund doctor-ordered treatments).
The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit. All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands#Hospitals

If this is correct, the individual only pays 45% of the premium directly. the rest being paid by their employer or subsidized by the government. To accurately compare, it's necessary to look at the whole premium, not just the patient portion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet all universal health care systems cost less per person despite not having these limits.

All they do is push up the profit margin of the blood sucking insurance companies. Sure, you can argue that the insurance company will be incentivised to lower premiums because they don't have to pay for the higher cost patient, but the argument is disingenuous when you look at, for example the Dutch healthcare system.

The Dutch system is a system that covers everyone, but utilises private, for profit insurance firms. If the Dutch system can run a profit for these firms despite no "pre-existing condition limits" the only reason American insurers would have them is to inflate their profits while screwing over the people who need healthcare the most.

I understand that you are stating you like the fact the ACA removed those limits, but those limits were an evil feature of the US healthcare system.

ETA: For the record, I would be covered by some sort of insurance in the Netherlands because everyone is. In the USA I would be absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊. I am 38 and I can guarantee I have cost the NHS more money in my lifetime than my paternal grandparents combined, who both lived to 97.

I swear some of you don't actually read my posts at all, you just make some random assumption about what you imagine I might mean and run with it.

You are correct that universal health care systems cost less and don't have pre-ex limits. 100% correct. You know what they also don't have? For profit hospitals. For profit surgery centers. For profit dialysis centers. For profit specialist wound care facilities. For profit infusion centers. For profit drug facilitator companies that don't make the drugs, nor do they prescribe the drugs, all they do is act as a go-between and skim costs.

I mean, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd probably have seen that I referenced the swiss system, and suggested it as what I think is the most reasonable approach. And it rather sounds like the dutch system might be substantially similar.

I'd really like people to actually read my posts in their entirety before assuming that I've said something entirely different from what I actually ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ said.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

We do have for-profit hospitals and surgery centers in the Netherlands. If you have enough money you can use those and get some treatments faster or ones not offered by insurance.

But we are also (at the moment) still willing to use the influence of the state to ensure the idiocy of the US is stopped. And yes, this involves taxations. Though as pointed out many times before, our taxation for healthcare is about equal percentage wise as US citizens pay, but with far better coverage.

 

[plague311]

JFC, you decided to personalize that all by yourself, and got your own butt all hurt by what you imagined I meant.

People very frequently conflate health care with health insurance. I corrected your conflation.

I thought my point was clear enough since I went on to specifically address the cost of healthcare and how the ACA played a role, but correction noted. That being said, that doesn't change my point at all. I didn't personalize it, you addressed me and directly correlated your ◊◊◊◊◊◊ "you and yor dad are broke down houses" analogy to my post. Own up to your words or don't, I guess.

I explained why pre-existing condition limits were in place prior to ACA, and the role they served in keeping insurance premiums down.

Yes, because at that point people could just die and keep the premiums down. That's awesome. Dammit ACA! Why you gotta take care of people with pre-existing conditions?! Why can't they just ◊◊◊◊ off or go bankrupt or whatever.

This is ironic because you just "corrected" me about healthcare vs health insurance, yet you give a prime example of how, previous to the ACA, people couldn't, or wouldn't, go get care because they wouldn't qualify for insurance. So it was either pay out of pocket, which most people couldn't afford, live with undiagnosed illnesses or go to the Emergency room (Which we all know is cheap), not pay that bill which the hospital then recovers by raising prices for everyone else! Brilliant!

And since you seem to have entirely missed it in your zeal to paint me as evil, I approve of ACA disallowing preexisting condition limits and exclusions! But that comes at a cost - it increase the premiums for health insurance.

Yes, your "correction" isn't the flex you think it is since we can clearly see the link between the two. People with pre-existing conditions generally couldn't afford to get insurance before the ACA, leading to not getting healthcare. The fact this isn't obvious to you is alarming.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We do have for-profit hospitals and surgery centers in the Netherlands. If you have enough money you can use those and get some treatments faster or ones not offered by insurance.

I assume, however, that most of your hospitals and surgery centers are not-for-profit and government funded?

But we are also (at the moment) still willing to use the influence of the state to ensure the idiocy of the US is stopped. And yes, this involves taxations. Though as pointed out many times before, our taxation for healthcare is about equal percentage wise as US citizens pay, but with far better coverage.

I have no objection to the state fixing the idiocy of the US health care system. The only thing I object to is the short-sighted proposal that the government should socialize insurance while leaving the delivery system privatized and for-profit. That's a recipe for disaster.