https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi...
Health care in the US is an increasingly brutal, over the top expensive mess.
Frankly, a quick look at why they want a public option is exactly why they would easily support Medicare for All.
Nobody loves their health care insurance company. And where they may be stoic to positive, it is only because they are insulated from the mess, or just have not actually had to receive significant care of any kind.
Tons of people, myself included, have seen serious financial ruin, and in my case it boiled down to basically trading my home and financial future for my spouse.
We got past it, but will never see the future I worked very hard for.
Health insurance companies do not actually add any value. Most of the developed world understands this, and how a market approach for primary care conflicts with fixing sick people.
Right now the priority is making money, not fixing people, and it shows.
More people experience it, or know someone who has every day. I make damn sure to educate others any time, any day, any place.
Once people actually experience Medicare, they love it. I have watched even the most staunch advocates for our current system age in and then change their tune.
There are exceptions, and those people buy Medicare Advantage plans and often seek help getting back to plain old Medicare, which is very difficult, by design. Ever wonder why that is?
Medicare is a system by which (currently, a subset) of Americans may select[0] either publicly subsidized private health plans or a purely-public[1] option.
The difference between this and the ACA plus a public option is...not that much.
[0] well, except for many Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligibles, for which a single plan (often fully-publicly-subsized private) covering both programs is selected for them by their state.
[1] actually administered by regional private contractors under federal rules.
and 70 percent support a public option. 55% is a majority.
Legalizing weed doesn't get into anyone's pocket.
And make no mistake: there are some big names in the battle agains marijuana [1]
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/oct/22...
1.8 million voters over the age of 55 age out every year, and election cycles are every two years. We’ll get there eventually (on Medicare for All and marijuana legalization), it’s just a matter of time. Until then, keep knocking it out at the state level. [2]
[1] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/20...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...
The Democrats have a majority now and did in 2010. They haven’t even attempted to pass marijuana legalization. I have my theories as to why but they certainly have nothing to do with gerrymandering.
The Senate is split 50-50. It's fair to say one half of that is more strongly opposed to it than the other since their states even rejected the Medicaid expansion accompanying Obamacare.
So it sounds like the Senate is doing a poor job of representing the people. Which leads to the obvious question: why have a Senate at all?
Could not figure out what DPC is, besides that it's a new innovative way of patients and doctors working together for their mutual benefit with no obvious drawbacks.
TLDR Medicare > Tricare (DoD) > private employer healthcare > nothing
I can easily say, "having private insurance in American, frankly, its not that good."
Proposals I've previously heard: Medicare for All, Medicare for Children, Medicare reduced age, a public-private option, improved transparency in costs (i.e. a menu), pin costs to Medicare + X%, allow insurance companies to operate across state lines, better subsidize preventative medicine, force clinicians to be able to speak to costs (similar to dentists/chiropractic/optometrists/dermatologist), reduce patent length or add a maximum return on investment to patents (e.g. 10x or 100x R&D costs?), etc.
Literally any of these would be an improvement. Please tell all of your representatives (regardless of politics) to fucking execute on any of them so things improve at least a bit from where it is now.
Sadly most elected officials fall in these age groups.
Legalizing weed at the Federal level will be a huge win even in states that have already done so. The industry has a very hard time dealing with banking, credit card payments, advertising etc. right now.
Joe Biden (President) - 78
Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) - 81
Steny Hoyer (House Majority Leader) - 81
Jim Clyburn (House Majority Whip) - 80
Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) - 70
Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader) - 79
Patrick Leahy (President pro tempore) - 81
Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) - 76
Most committee chairs/ranking members are 70+
These are the people running the country. A 30 year old first term congresswoman has next to zero influence in matters like this one.
Our bodies are our own to build - they are own to destroy (or alter, or any other damn thing). The whole point of the war on drugs was to imprison minorities. The whole concept of drug prohibition should be done away with.
Millions of people are sitting in prison in the US simply because they did something entirely consensual and nonviolent, engaging in a willing transaction with an adult, and victimized no one.
The idea that you can't put whatever you want into your own body is diametrically opposed to the desire for personal liberty for which the US is known.
Drunk driving is illegal; alcohol possession and sale is not, nor should it be.
Child abuse and neglect is already illegal, regardless of drug laws.
There’s 3 larges sectors that are still holdouts. Healthcare, alcohol, and tobacco industries.
Healthcare will never flip because there’s almost no revenue for them. The only thing they might be able to do is partner with Bayer and license/patent specific strains.
Tobacco exists because it’s addictive. CBD and hemp already offer sedative natural alternatives that are healthier and safer for the consumer. If you find anybody taking Wellbutrin or any drug that can cessate the nicotine withdrawal, they can easily kick the habit via cold turkey, or substitution.
Finally the last big industry is alcohol. I could talk about this pivot for hours but ultimately, look at what AB/InBev is doing. What have they poured millions of r&d into lately? Seltzer drinks. Edibles are expected to be the largest growth segment of the legal cannabis industry for the next 10 years. I already see it in various circles. Seltzer drinks are easily the next step for the alcohol industry. The issue now is how are these cards going to fall. Will they try to pace their way and drop tons of r&d into the legalization/testing efforts or will they try to leverage all of the existing infrastructure that exists in the legal cannabis industry?
That’s why I think we’re only about 5-10 acquisitions away from finding the answer. And once we have the answer, legalization will easily fall afterward.
Edit to add: Biden is doing a great job but this wasn’t one of his bullet points. He might have a difference of opinion. He might pursue something at the federal level. But I’m not counting on it. I fully believe that if these acquisitions happen before 2022 we’ll see it on ballots.
As to if high people are bad drivers, then yes they are. I don't even know how that's a debate. What constitutes high is the real debate.
But I fear legalization too. I fear people taking it too far and forcing a backlash and a new prohibition.
Nothing else is as lucrative, and most secondary markets they get involved in tend to be to supply things the criminals want - i.e. guns and sex trafficking.
There is a bizarre trend in these conversations to make a defeatist argument along the lines of "the cartels can never be stopped" that doesn't seem to line up with any of the actual evidence.
For example, gun running into the US just isn't a thing - gun smuggling is what organized crime takes out of the US - but the money needs to be USD to pay for it, and ultimately Mexico just doesn't have a lot of that without drugs.
>Biden’s blunt opposition to marijuana legalization
https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalizati...
I'm sure she'll offer her views privately and then follow the President's lead publicly, just as Biden did when he opposed Obama's Afghanistan surge and remaining there forever.
However, on this issue, a group of Republicans and Democrats have been renewing a ban on using Federal dollars to prosecute individuals for pot in states where it is legal since the Obama years, regardless of which party controls the Senate.
The answer, unfortunately, lies in the many layers upon layers of ‘dealmaking’ that happens in congress that lead to popular bills being bundled with less popular ones. Combined with the trend of trying to pass everything through reconciliation, it means that we almost never get to see congress legislate individual issues.
That’s a shame. In software, we’d recognize this all-or-nothing approach as bad practice. It would be no surprise why nothing ever gets done, and we’d make a new process that favors incremental improvements.
Having to go through budget reconciliation is another symptom of the same problem. The filibuster used to get used very infrequently. Now that the parties have clearly sorted themselves there is actually less cross-party dealmaking, instead everything has to go through reconciliation which also requires that bills get changed to fit the requirements of budget reconciliation. It's just another outcome of our hyperpartisanship.
The hyperpartisanship and two-party system is also the reason why even popular legislation cannot pass. If it passes it's a win for the governing party. If it doesn't it gets held against the government party because they should be in control. If they cannot get it done it gets blamed on them bring weak. So why would the opposition allow passing even popular legislation? McConnell explained this very openly and clearly.
2. Having zero spare votes (there is usually at least one Democrat senator, like Manchin, opposed to everything)
I don't really want it to be illegal, but as far as I can tell, the same thing that happens to cigarette smokers happens to weed smokers: perspective on the fact that smoking is the atmospheric equivalent of peeing in the pool is lost.
And I wake up like I did last night at 1:30am having had a neighbor opt me into the experience via my open window next to the patio. Yay, personal liberty.
I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, but please, figure out a way to keep it personal.
The frequency of occurrence has absolutely changed, which in retrospect seems to be exactly what you should expect.
> They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable.
You know, I was a little worried that my comment about people losing perspective on the impacts of their habit might have been an overgeneralization (I certainly do know some people who are more circumspect about it), but thank you for volunteering to demonstrate exactly how it works.
If my "level of suffering" at being involuntarily opted into someone else's smoking choices is inconsequential, then surely their entirely voluntary choice to engage in it is inconsequential too, and their level of suffering at any requirement to forgo it should be inconsequential.
"I enjoy this and so I don't have to worry about whether it annoys or distresses anyone else" is no basis for social reasoning.
Smoke ordinances would be at least that reasonable.
