this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
1910 points (99.3% liked)

Microblog Memes

5772 readers
2980 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There wouldn't be an insurance company to tell you no in a single payer system

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Damn. That's gonna be really hard to get to in the US. Several steps at least. I'm guessing the next step that we can work for is just guaranteeing universal coverage. But there's gonna be bloody battles over just removing an entire industry from the US market in our lifetime. So I guess this problem is here to stay, even if we're lucky enough to get guaranteed coverage regardless of employment.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah that's what the ACA was supposed to do. Until it got neutered and eventually destroyed.

The whole premise was based on the three-legged stool:

  • Carrier responsibility (guaranteed coverage, no pre-existing conditions, preventative and prenatal coverage, etc)
  • Government responsibility (tax credits, cap on max OOP, etc)
  • Citizen responsibility (individual mandate)

Problem is, a stool with three legs is pretty stable, until you shorten or remove one or more, like the individual mandate or the tax subsidies, the whole thing topples over.

One problem was the carrier responsibility leg was too short. Should have been more aggressive in making sure that premiums could not out-pace inflation or otherwise rise over a certain threshold year-over-year.

The other problem is the welfare gap that gets created when you have the individual mandate and not enough funding for Medicare/Medicaid subsidies. You end up with a big chunk of otherwise healthy people who now are forced to either buy (very expensive and not employer sponsored) health insurance, or face a significant tax penalty. The people who got stuck in the middle were rightfully pissed off.

(And surprise surprise, the ones that got stuck in the middle were largely in red states, because they wanted to starve the medicaid beast).

But of course, instead of fixing it by upping the subsidies, we fixed it by removing the individual mandate. In other words, instead of putting a matchbook under the short leg, we completely removed the squeaky one. Now the whole damn stool is falling over and nobody wants to catch it.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's gonna be really hard to get to in the US

It's actually very easy. Force all insurance companies to segregate their health insurance. Nationalise all health insurance.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's what I'm saying is going to be the hard part. Force the industry to gut themselves. Aren't they the ones paying for our politicians careers? If it were that simple, why hasn't it been done already?

Yup. Which politicians are going to vote to make lobbying illegal?