politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I mean, if they actually did this, this would be great. Which is actually why I'm skeptical of it ever happening.
Still, our political system is really weird right now. We're fundamentally in an era of political realignment. The old coalitions have failed, and new ones are sorting themselves out. The Republican Party of today isn't the Republican Party of 30 years ago. Who would have predicted Republicans becoming the champions of ending free trade? Free trade helps corporate profits; Republicans were the original proponents of post-Reagan free trade agreements like NAFTA. And Republicans won on the issue so thoroughly that Democrats as well fully embraced it. After a few decades, Republicans now realized that neither side was opposing free trade, and thus there was a huge political opening. Despite corporate interests, Trump was able to lead the party to be against free trade.
Political parties ultimately seek power above all else. And Democrats have largely ceded the ground on transformational Social policy. If Democrats aren't going to produce serious medical reform plans, there is now a huge pool of voters out there who want bold change, but currently have no one to vote for. It's a huge political opportunity that Republicans could seize.
Of course, the big objection people would have to this is, but what about corporate influence? True, I don't see Trump becoming a trust-busting Theodore Roosevelt any time soon. But this kind of reform is actually the kind of thing that corporations might welcome. But imagine a plan like this passes. Now businesses don't have to worry about healthcare. They simply pay a flat tax, and that covers everyone's healthcare costs. They don't have to worry about costs rising unpredictably every year. They don't have to fight insurers over coverage. They don't have to hire more HR employees to manage enrollment. Nope, just pay a flat payroll tax, and you're done. The number you deduct from your employees' pay stub jumps up, but that's about it. They have to pay their share of the payroll tax. But the amount they will pay in tax is likely far less than what they are currently paying for insurance. Companies stand to profit from this.
Employers who don't offer healthcare to their employees would stand to lose, but every other company would benefit immensely from a federal health insurance program. Hell, Trump himself has probably personally battled with the inanity of dealing with health insurance plans as business owner. As long as the corporations or wealthy aren't being taxed to pay for it, there may not actually be much corporate opposition to this plan. The healthcare industry gave more money to Kamala than to Trump. There are different kinds of corporate interests, and they do not always align. And for many corporate sectors, offloading the burden of healthcare to the government, in exchange for a flat payroll tax, could be quite tempting.
I don't know if something like this will really happen, I'm probably just being optimistic. But perhaps, if we're lucky, the sheer strangeness of the moment might allow for political options that would previously be unthinkable. If Trump actually wanted to have as his legacy some serious change to the healthcare system...this would be the way to do it. It's something that would genuinely improve the system, but done in a way that doesn't fall hard on the wealthy, and would be at least neutral in its overall affect on corporations. It's the kind of thing that might actually get through Congress, pushed through on a strange coalition of ride-or-die MAGA Congress people and progressive Democrats. Sanders hand-in-hand with MTG, somehow finding a way to work for the betterment of all.
Back in reality, however, my more pessimistic side thinks they would insist on adding bullshit to it that would make it an abomination. This plan would effectively kill the private insurance market. Private insurers would still exist, but they would all operate through Medicare Advantage. The entire population, outside of those already on Medicare or Medicaid, would be enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan. The only plans that existed outside of this would be boutique luxury supplement plans (plans that offer services on top of what Medicare provides.) But it would effectively kill the market for purely private basic insurance.
They would probably start adding culture war requirements to these new Medicare Advantage plans. Expect plans to be prohibited from covering abortion, contraception, gender-affirming care, etc. Which would mean that no insurance plan would be able to cover these things. Hopefully that kind of crap would have to be left on the cutting room floor as the bill worked its way through. But it's the kind of thing I would be wary of.