A few years ago, I was someone who was a full-time student, but for some reason was removed off the school's coverage and could not get them to put me back on. What would my insurance option be with his plan? I couldn't afford insurance since the government subsidies required having filed taxes (which you don't file if you've zero income). And because Texas didn't expand Medicare, it didn't cover me. In that situation would I have been left uncovered still? Or would I be on the hook for money I didn't have on that retroactive charge?
At the moment, I'm uninsured again, because I'm only making about $1k a month being a caretaker for my grandmother, and about $600 of that goes to student loans and my car loan (and I just finally finished paying off the IRS for taxes on a forgiven student loan). So, while I do plan to start looking for a full-time job soon, in the meantime, insurance isn't an affordable option for me.
How strong is the association between campaign spending and political success? For House seats, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win. From 2000 through 2016, there was only one election cycle where that wasn’t true: 2010. “In that election, 86 percent of the top spenders won,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign fundraising and spending.
Unless or until we do something about this sad state of affairs, we are well and truly fucked, and getting anything meaningful done about any given problem will almost certainly remain beyond our capabilities, no matter how crucial it is, or hard we try.
I saw - at least in the material I read - an emphasis on redundant healthcare workers, not on insurance-related or admin personnel. If I was mistaken, that's good.
Yeah, no, there will still be plenty of need for healthcare workers. They won't be losing jobs without insurance. It's the billers and the middlemen and the insurance analysts, etc.
might be just imprecision in the terminology? Admin people who work in health industry could be termed healthcare workers. When we hear that it does suggest direct care/service providers such as nurses, doctors, lab techs etc. But it's the redundancy in the administrative processes (and therefore jobs) that will be eliminated.
Pete started out supporting Medicare for All and then completely backtracked after his campaign started taking money from pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists. Now, he's proposing this disaster of a 'plan,' telling lies about Medicare for All, and using conservative talking-points. Genuine, he is not.
That's a lie that seems to be unkillable. Pete has NEVER EVER EVER changed his position on M4A at all. He was taking the same position in his stump speeches a year ago, and years before the current campaign. The phrase "Medicare for All" meant allowing everyone to be *eligible* for Medicare, not forcing everyone into it, for decades, ever since Kennedy, Dingell, and Conyers introduced bills which would do that. Only in the past year did it become code for Bernie's poison-pill provision which will ensure that Bernie's bill never passes and nothing changes. When Pete said he was wholly committed to Medicare for All, he said he was in favor of whichever approach would get us to universal coverage, but he has never been convinced that Bernie's approach is the workable one.
And this accusation that he takes money from "lobbyists" is particularly damnable since lobbyists along with fossil fuel executives are specifically forbidden from contributing to his campaign. The Sanders campaign spreads malicious venom about other candidates in the dirtiest campaign since 1972 and it gets really tiresome confronting the same verbatim falsehoods over and over.
Pete's plan only covers 80%, could leave people in the most need with a $7,000 bill, and it does nothing to address rising cost. People will still be dependent on their employers for insurance, and people will still be hit with surprise bills for being out of network.
Reality, in other words.
Enough that the Repubs still want to take it away.
A few years ago, I was someone who was a full-time student, but for some reason was removed off the school's coverage and could not get them to put me back on. What would my insurance option be with his plan? I couldn't afford insurance since the government subsidies required having filed taxes (which you don't file if you've zero income). And because Texas didn't expand Medicare, it didn't cover me. In that situation would I have been left uncovered still? Or would I be on the hook for money I didn't have on that retroactive charge?
At the moment, I'm uninsured again, because I'm only making about $1k a month being a caretaker for my grandmother, and about $600 of that goes to student loans and my car loan (and I just finally finished paying off the IRS for taxes on a forgiven student loan). So, while I do plan to start looking for a full-time job soon, in the meantime, insurance isn't an affordable option for me.
*Per FiveThirtyEight.com:
How strong is the association between campaign spending and political success? For House seats, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win. From 2000 through 2016, there was only one election cycle where that wasn’t true: 2010. “In that election, 86 percent of the top spenders won,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign fundraising and spending.
Unless or until we do something about this sad state of affairs, we are well and truly fucked, and getting anything meaningful done about any given problem will almost certainly remain beyond our capabilities, no matter how crucial it is, or hard we try.
Of course the pre-existing conditions provisions of the ACA will be continued in any of the Dem candidates' plans.
My understanding was that was healthcare workers, which these people really aren't, but if I'm wrong, that's a good thing.
I saw - at least in the material I read - an emphasis on redundant healthcare workers, not on insurance-related or admin personnel. If I was mistaken, that's good.
That's not the only way they can shuffle people off. https://www.thenation.com/a...
Yeah, no, there will still be plenty of need for healthcare workers. They won't be losing jobs without insurance. It's the billers and the middlemen and the insurance analysts, etc.
His negatives are the killer for me.
might be just imprecision in the terminology? Admin people who work in health industry could be termed healthcare workers. When we hear that it does suggest direct care/service providers such as nurses, doctors, lab techs etc. But it's the redundancy in the administrative processes (and therefore jobs) that will be eliminated.
Pete started out supporting Medicare for All and then completely backtracked after his campaign started taking money from pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists. Now, he's proposing this disaster of a 'plan,' telling lies about Medicare for All, and using conservative talking-points. Genuine, he is not.
That's a lie that seems to be unkillable. Pete has NEVER EVER EVER changed his position on M4A at all. He was taking the same position in his stump speeches a year ago, and years before the current campaign. The phrase "Medicare for All" meant allowing everyone to be *eligible* for Medicare, not forcing everyone into it, for decades, ever since Kennedy, Dingell, and Conyers introduced bills which would do that. Only in the past year did it become code for Bernie's poison-pill provision which will ensure that Bernie's bill never passes and nothing changes. When Pete said he was wholly committed to Medicare for All, he said he was in favor of whichever approach would get us to universal coverage, but he has never been convinced that Bernie's approach is the workable one.
And this accusation that he takes money from "lobbyists" is particularly damnable since lobbyists along with fossil fuel executives are specifically forbidden from contributing to his campaign. The Sanders campaign spreads malicious venom about other candidates in the dirtiest campaign since 1972 and it gets really tiresome confronting the same verbatim falsehoods over and over.
Around 45,000 people die a year for lack of coverage under the ACA.
Medicare is not "uncharted territory." Pete's horrible plan aside, Medicare is significantly more popular than the ACA.
Sanders' Medicare for All bill lowers the age of eligibility to include everyone in a decades old and popular health coverage program.
Zuckerberg and his wife literally advise Pete's campaign.
https://www.bloomberg.com/n...
Pete's plan only covers 80%, could leave people in the most need with a $7,000 bill, and it does nothing to address rising cost. People will still be dependent on their employers for insurance, and people will still be hit with surprise bills for being out of network.
Hard pass.