dagblog - Comments for "Naomi Klein on Identity Politics, Climate Change and Trump "

I'm also sympathetic to K.I.S

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:19:00 +0000

I'm also sympathetic to K.I.S.S. - Obamacare turned into a complex negotiation of various partners, and presenting the public a simplified "Single Payer - that's it, let's take it home" has its attractions.

I guess I'd present it as: "we're fine improving Obamacare little by little, but if you feel you have to do something drastic, here's our SIngle Payer proposal, which will have the opposite effect of viciously kicking 30 million off the roles - it'll finally make healthcare available and truly affordable for everyone. Middle America - time to make a decision - you say we don't listen. But do you want a health plan that actually takes care of your needs and worries, or do you want to get suckered by the Trump liars again into tightening your belts to pay for tax cuts for the rich while you stay ill?"

Still, I hate to interfere with the Republicans' train wreck. Let them own it.

Yes, 1) it doesn't really

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:14:22 +0000

In reply to Switzerland has a functioning

Yes, 1) it doesn't really matter as long as it's not too complex, whatever the system, 2) the US continues to have 50-100% more per capita costs than all the other industrial countries, despite the supposed goal of making health care "affordable". It's more affordable for the lower tier now, but we're still far from making it comparable overall, and I still can't believe the quality of US health care & technical innovation is 50-100% greater than all those other countries. 3) free choice is good - there are a couple of places where that would help us out here, but I think that's as much just the low availability of particular specialists.

Switzerland has a functioning

Obey — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:51:34 +0000

In reply to Yes, that's closer. She

Switzerland has a functioning Obamacare type set-up. But that is because it is well-regulated, private insurers are allowed to make no profit on the basic no-frills mandated insurance plans, they are only allowed a profit margin on additional insurance for special needs and wishes (eg. all my doctor friends told me to tick the "free choice of surgeon" box for some reason).

However, I don't think it's transferrable to the US because US costs are less well controlled and here the financing is less tricky: hardly any need for subsidies. No one here really needs subsidies except, perhaps, if you are unemployed or minimum wage with kids. For everyone else basic insurance doesn't add up to more than 10% of net income.

Single payer referenda keep coming up every few years, but the system works well enough so no one really wants to rock the boat.

Yes, that's closer. She

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:25:44 +0000

In reply to I didn't mean to suggest that

Yes, that's closer. She seemed to say 1) there's no way to push through and self-inflicted damage to try, and 2) there are different insurees with very different kinds of needs that will scream bloody murder if a one-size-fits-all approach forced on them. (not that they're not already screaming bloody murder at every turn)

I likely agree with you that this complex mess is only a midway point to something simpler that actually saves money. I have state-sponsored insurance, there are only 2 companies to go through, it's incredibly uncomplex, it has a few problems but overall I've much more content than the byzantine efforts to get served in America and the concerns of being dropped or denied at any moment.

I wasn't thrilled with the slow road to Obamacare in the beginning, with a lot of what seemed like unnecessary compromises. But I don't think now is the time to change strategy - I favor locking in what we've *almost* gotten now and maybe improve in 8-15 years, hopefully with a more sane government at that point.

I think Warren is not the

artappraiser — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 02:07:36 +0000

In reply to Interesting time for Warren

I think Warren is not the classic liberal she is made out to be by many, rather she comes from a very passionate consumer rights background. Not classic lefty, nor pro-labor, she sees the economy as consumer driven and doesn't see the consumer protected enough. In health care, she knows the whole system is rotten as there is no free market value reasoning, the consumer will pay any price, even bankrupt himself for quality of life or life itself. So to her, the problem would be far more complex than Trump's absurd acknowledgement: even if you got rid of profit-driven health insurance, you'd still have "money-driven medicine" operational and screwing the consumer/taxpayer still. She also is smart enough to know non-profit medicine is not a reality in the country for the foreseeable future, that there's a very long row to hoe to consumer being able to have real power.

I didn't mean to suggest that

Obey — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:39:42 +0000

In reply to Clinton is not "fundamentally

I didn't mean to suggest that the very idea of single-payer offends her moral sensibilities, if that is your issue. At least that is not a hill I'm willing to die defending.

So let me rephrase. Her worldview is such that, to her, no good can come of trying to push through and implementing such a policy.

By contrast, my worldview is such that I personally don't think there are still a multitude of further ways to satisfy the appetites of corporate monopolies and cartels in every field of human life and somehow produce win-win results for both them and ordinary citizens. Insofar as the US is concerned, that well is bone dry, imvho. As regards health care, any Obamacare type structure is unsustainable (in cost-control terms) over the medium term, except as a bridge towards single-payer. If the Democrats don't fight to pave the way towards the latter one way or another, they are complicit in the total breakdown of the health care system. But that is just my deep-seated opinion.

If you don't like the idea of calling that disagreement an ideological one. Fine. But it goes much deeper than merely a procedural dispute about political logistics among allies.

Clinton is not "fundamentally

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 20:07:51 +0000

In reply to Interesting time for Warren

Clinton is not "fundamentally ideologically opposed" - she just sees it practically impossible to get agreement from the different stakeholders. She is pragmatic, not ideologically against. She just doesn't see a way to buck industry interests and different needs/usage of different geoups and have it still fly.

Random other piece of

Obey — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:07:21 +0000

In reply to Interesting time for Warren

Random other piece of confusion for me. Klein apparently charges 20'000 dollars to come do a one hour talk, for non-profits even. Which is small beans compared to Clinton and co, but still. I don't how big a market there is for her kind of material at that price. Who with piles of cash to burn wants to hear her stuff?

Interesting time for Warren

Obey — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:53:12 +0000

In reply to I found the interview shallow

Interesting time for Warren to start pushing single-payer. I know we disagree on the merits, but just find the timing odd. Not sure what the dynamics are here. Conservatives seem to assume that not adequately repealing Obamacare will pave the road to single payer.

The conservative organization Heritage Action has warned Republicans that a GOP bill that doesn’t adequately repeal the 2010 law could lead to single-payer. Its CEO, Mike Needham, called that prospect “the biggest fear I have.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly expressed the same fear in comments to Senate Republicans.

To me, it seems the opposite - if Obamacare is repealed, it will just strengthen the single-payer movement, as it shows that Obama's strategy of trying a compromise system to mollify conservatives cannot work.

As for Warren, it seems to me that she is declaring war on the Democratic party establishment here. Far too many are dependent on HC for-profit industry money to be able to hop on the single-payer bandwagon. And/or are fundamentally ideologically opposed, like Clinton.

Not sure what her thinking is here.

Can't we counter with

artappraiser — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:09:53 +0000

In reply to I found the interview shallow

Can't we counter with something hopeful?

Heard tell the hope thing works.Seems to me the only response that other side could think of is "how's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?" and the response to that would be high presidential approval ratings in second terms. Even the fake sunny optimism works, see Ronnie. Angry libs against Sunny Ronnie did not work.

And I have never seen attacking the evil U.S. hegemon work.

Nice rant.