Why I left the Democratic Party

@Cycloptichorn,

Clinton's platform and what she actually does are separate items, by a wide margin.

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Clinton's platform and what she actually does are separate items, by a wide margin.

No, they aren't actually.

When Clinton was in an elected position she followed her platform and that of the Democratic party almost on every vote.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Clinton's platform and what she actually does are separate items, by a wide margin.

Provide a single example of legislation she backed or helped pass that supports what you're saying here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Well, you certainly seem to think inside the narrow box of the status quo...

I like to call that 'reality.'

Reality is bigger than your thoughts, Cyclo. More unpredictable, more free.

Quote:

For instance on bipartisanship. This is an obsolete idea.

No, it's not.[/quote]
Yes, it is.

Quote:

Quote:
You can't work with this crop of republicans. They are brain dead. Obama tried to work with them for 8 years and couldn't get anything done. They control Congress and white house but can't get any bill passed.... That should tell you something about their ability to compromise.

I agree with this, though. However, what do you think is going to or should happen once this 'current crop' has been defeated, and the Dems take control again. Should the Dems be as dictatorial and reluctant to compromise and work together as the GOP has been? Should we emulate the very behaviors that we have long decried as being destructive to our system of government?

I predict that by then, this new generation of Democrats will have realized that the costs of bi-partisanship -- in terms of muddling political accountability, allowing unworkable compromises and a creeping paralysis -- far outweight the possible benefits.

Quote:

Quote:
For instance on single payer. Your idea that it would result in millions of job losses is a "do-nothing" idea typical of Republican discourse.

See my comments re: reality. I'm starting to think that you're maybe no so up to speed on the actual details of policy.

You still haven't shown much proof that you understand economics, let alone that you can predict the impact that various health care system options would have on the US job market.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I have literally nothing to prove to you whatsoever, let alone about economics and the US job market. I say that with confidence because I've spent four decades studying these topics and I haven't seen anything that indicates you've spent any time at all studying it. You sure do have opinions, though.

Quote:

I predict that by then, this new generation of Democrats will have realized that the costs of bi-partisanship -- in terms of muddling political accountability, allowing unworkable compromises and a creeping paralysis -- far outweight the possible benefits.

This is simply childish and inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that a lack of bipartisanship leads to paralysis in our government system, not the opposite. You can viz the exact situation we have today: neither side can effectively pass a major bill, because it's too easy to block them in our system when there's no compromise being made between parties.

The proof of the perils of no-compromising is directly in front of your face. The result of it is a Congress that is unable to address the issues of the day. We would be better off making trades with each other to advance policy in specific ways than we are doing absolutely nothing at all due to gridlock.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I think that a medicare for all plan would reduce hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs too. I mean, that's the point right?

Medicare has an overhead of something like 3% versus a healthcare company's overhead of ~20%+. Overhead is mostly peoples salaries. If you lower overhead by 85%, you're going to reduce a whole lot of jobs.

And that's just in the health insurance industry. Think of all the HR people dealing with healthcare working in the various businesses around the country. Those jobs are not needed anymore, are they?

I think reducing jobs is a fantastic idea here. But to Cyclop's point, it's not going to be very politically popular and it's not something that can be done in one fell swoop. It's something that needs to be incremental.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I think that a medicare for all plan would reduce hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs too. I mean, that's the point right?

I find it highly amusing that these guys both champion single-payer or Medicare for All, loudly claiming that it's far more efficient and cheaper, without realizing that the result of said efficiencies is job losses. I strongly suspect that we're dealing with people who have never had to make those sorts of decisions in their business life, and somehow think that things can be had without trade-offs.

Quote:

I think reducing jobs is a fantastic idea here. But to Cyclop's point, it's not going to be very politically popular and it's not something that can be done in one fell swoop. It's something that needs to be incremental.

Hello, fellow reality-ite!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I think that a medicare for all plan would reduce hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs too. I mean, that's the point right?

I find it highly amusing that these guys both champion single-payer or Medicare for All, loudly claiming that it's far more efficient and cheaper, without realizing that the result of said efficiencies is job losses. I strongly suspect that we're dealing with people who have never had to make those sorts of decisions in their business life, and somehow think that things can be had without trade-offs.

It is amusing, but also frustrating.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The reality is the claims submission and adjusting jobs are continuing to diminish as a result of automation. I see it literally every week. A group of friends/former colleagues was laid off yesterday. Data entry jobs are pretty much gone - there are only a few groups of contract positions that come up when companies merge and their systems need to be lined up. Adjusting positions have been disappearing since the late 1990's. Examiner roles are increasing (but not at an equivalent rate) to deal with disputes/mediations etc.

Management jobs will decrease as systems are merged but that's been happening for over two decades already.

Trying to argue against single payer on a jobs basis just isn't a winner.

There will always people needed to work in the system as people will continue to submit claims but automation has changed this significantly already - and will continue to change it at least as much as bringing in single-payer could.

the first insurance head office I ever saw looked remarkably like this

http://www.officemuseum.com/Office_in_California.jpg

then we went to punch cards and giant reels and office jobs started to leave the industry - my dad's first insurance job included being on-call 24-7 to go in to switch the reels out

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/A5r40BvnEEE/hqdefault.jpg

I remember when computer rooms were dedicated buildings with double airlock doors

now we work in bookable sushi bar spaces like this

https://officefurniturescene.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Linnea-18-725x1024.jpg

each one of the chairs in the second photo represents the capacity to do more work than the whole room in the pic from the 1950's

times changed and are changing

____

I have a somewhat unique perspective as my dad worked for a life and health carrier starting in the year universal health care started in Canada, and I've worked in and around the industry for 35 years. As it's something we have in common, we talk about changes in the industry and jobs a fair bit.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I'm not arguing against single payer by claiming job loss. I'm doing the opposite.

I'm saying that single payer BETTER reduce jobs. That's a huge positive for the program. Medicare has a 3% overhead compared to 25% at some health insurance companies. Get rid of those redundant jobs!

If you're saying it won't then that's extremely disappointing and it makes single payer less appealing to me. I don't see how you can reduce costs in the health insurance industry by any substantial amount without reducing overhead.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Trying to argue against single payer on a jobs basis just isn't a winner.

The point here isn't to argue against Single-Payer on a jobs basis, it's that the political reality of the jobs lost by switching to a more efficient system has to be taken into account when discussing the actual process of getting a system put in place. It's important because it highlights the true difficulty of enacting these policies in our political system, even though so many people - including me! - agree that it would be superior to our current system.

You cannot have more efficiency without losing jobs, it just doesn't happen. Either Single-Payer / Med for all will have a lower administrative burden, with less jobs on all levels, or it won't be any more efficient and save money.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You cannot have more efficiency without losing jobs, it just doesn't happen. Either Single-Payer / Med for all will have a lower administrative burden, with less jobs on all levels, or it won't be any more efficient and save money.

the jobs are leaving the industry in any case

I work for a company that used to have over 500 people doing what about 40 are doing now.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

While that may be true, there's a big difference between jobs that are 'lost' due to a company organizing more efficiently, and those that are 'lost' due to legislation passed by YOUR Congressman and YOU Senator.

You can't do anything about the company who lays off you or your brother. You can vote out of office the guy who passes laws that do the same thing. This is why politicians are (rightly) scared to make changes that lead to job losses in their districts: it puts them out of a job as well.

This is just one of many political problems with the transition of a major part of our economy to a new system, even if it's a better one. Proponents of the new system need to admit that this is true instead of simply denouncing anyone who points it out and bemoaning that more politicians aren't putting their necks out there to support it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

1. I believe that overal, Trump was the most hated US presidential candidate ever. He was extreme, racist, untrue always and to all. He was evidently a weak candidate. Clinton knew it: remember the 'pied pipper strategy'?

2. I haven't seen annotated lists of dem newcomers elected to the Virgina state house so should indeed not be commenting on their radicalism quite yet. I would expect some freshness and idealism... We shall see.

3. Analysing what went wrong is always a good idea after a defeat, lest you want to fail again. To reject a cold-blood post-mortem analysis as late as one year after such a resounding defeat is to behave as an entitled snowflake. The phrase you're looking for is "I take full responsibility for what happened". On day one.

4. For one, the party's platform remains what Sanders and Clinton negotiated post primaries, i.e. markedly on Clinton's left side. For two, the party’s top dogs are now advertising their ardor for socialized medicine, free public college, universal child care, paid family leave and the same kind of public health insurance option that their centrist predecessors killed under Obama.

5. Something radically new is happening.

6. Voters and non-voters are indeed responsible for their votes but they are not accountable to anyone for their votes. There's an important nuance there.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The point is not to reduce millions of jobs. The point is to reduce the profit made by pharmaceutical companies and possibly some doctors, and reduce some staff redondancies to the extent possible, but i seriously doubt they will figure in the millions. The new state-run company will need to hire people, and there's no telling that they will need millions less folks to manage a public option as compared to private insurances now.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The point is not to reduce millions of jobs. The point is to reduce the profit made by pharmaceutical companies and possibly some doctors, and reduce some staff redondancies to the extent possible, but i seriously doubt they will figure in the millions. The new state-run company will need to hire people, and there's no telling that they will need millions less folks to manage a public option as compared to private insurances now.

Health insurance companies have a 3-9% profit margin depending on the company. The other 16%-22% overhead is mostly people's jobs.

And you know what? These profit margins are capped by the ACA that you seem to hate.

You're going to have to bring more savings to the table than that.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I read that Virginia as a state has variations with their democrats: with northern Va more citified, southern Va. way more rural. I haven't read enough yet, and didn't save a link. If I read it correctly, the vote in the north was pretty much expected; the positive voting to the south a bit of a surprise.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Calm down, sweety pie. I don't hate the ACA.

More savings would accrue from reducing the price of medicines to Canadian or French levels, through better bargaining power.

2 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

I suppose the transgender delegate comes from the north?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I know.

I’m not saying single payer is bad.

I’m saying the implementing it in one fell swoop will be politically unpopular and downright impossible if you don’t elect 60-70 Democrats in the Senate

1 Reply

Why I left the Democratic Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know