Progressives Do a Few Absolutely Necessary Things Through Legislation

I'm not posting an apologia for progressivism. But it occurs to me that several of the highest profile progressives in the last century have enacted some key legislation that, while socialist in nature, was essential in order to avoid civil disorder or mass disaffection with the republic toward a revolution.

I'll go through the instances I see:

FDR - Roosevelt was a total deep state bastard who fostered the Japanese front of WWII to start; who was a racist who interred Japanese citizens and who confiscated gold.

HOWEVER - he instituted Social Security.

Saving for retirement had eluded me and what I saved was a pittance compared to what I'll need in future years. It's not intended to be replacement income - it's just a base. But for now it supports me. And I am near the middle top of the heap of middle class wage earners and that is how inept my retirement saving was.

However of course SS is a drag on the economy but is a pittance compared to most other large programs.

Johnson - Medicare. Ibid. I just had heart related surgery. The total bill was $170+K negotiated down and funded by Medicare. My share - $1800 in co-pay (written off by the hospital system as a financial assistance thing.)

And - my grandmother retired around 1961. She would have moved in with us if she did not have Social Security as a base. She was able to stay in her house and she still lived on almost nothing, but it was enough.

Obama - Obamacare. Wife had breast cancer earlier this year. All paid for less a measly <$1000 yearly personal deductible.

Obamacare is a TOTAL grift. But it is necessary unless we were to completely blast apart the price fixing + subsidies inherent in American medical care and insurance. And there is no assurance that completely restructuring the American health care system to remove "payola" would result in a working system afterward. The private marketplace without subsidies would have offered far weaker, more adversarial plans that would bankrupt most people with chronic conditions. Obama is hated for Obamacare but what are the alternatives if you are a middle aged or older person, a person without an employer health plan, or someone with chronic preexisting conditions? Those who hate Obamacare have no alternative they recommend. You're not supposed to require medical care.

The greatest criticism of Obamacare IMO is that it left the lack of medical cost containment intact and it left the adversarial consumer pricing model of American prescription drugs intact. Prices are legislated between providers and insurance pools but basically US health care is incredibly expensive and inflexible. (I know someone who was in the Bahamas on vacation and the wife forgot her insulin back home in the US. A local doctor examined her and provided insulin for $40 on the spot.)

None of this makes these three US presidents any better as human beings. But a straight conservative party line on any of these three programs never offers replacement that won't outrage a good part of the public.

Ok, now crucify me.

Social Security is a disaster. Most people earn less than what they would have gotten investing the money themselves. It's a pyramid scheme. It can't ever be ended, because the current retirees who would be cheated would vote against it.

Medicare and Obamacare - another disaster. The reason healthcare is expensive is because the AMA and government limit the number of seats in medical schools, keeping the supply of doctors artificially low. Everything else is just a band aid working around that problem.

Employer-paid health insurance is another disaster. It means that most people aren't paying directly for their doctor costs, so there's no incentive for anyone to compete on price. It also means that anyone unemployed is screwed, creating the need for something like Obamacare.

If you want an example of how big of a disaster the healthcare system is, try having a pet and paying for a vet visit. You're paying out of pocket and it's much cheaper. For the most part, it's the same types of treatments they give to humans. That's because the AMA and other lobbyists haven't inserted themselves into the system.

I qualified my observations heavily and yes, it all sucks anyway.

All I'm observing is that from time to time, Democrats have identified key social needs that they have attempted to solve through $legislation$. Conservatives basically say everything is your own personal problem or a free market problem.

Social Security is a disaster. Most people earn less than what they would have gotten investing the money themselves. It's a pyramid scheme. It can't ever be ended, because the current retirees who would be cheated would vote against it.

You have no idea how shit my own track record has been in investing. :-| I honestly believe the return I'm seeing is much more than the compounded total of what I put into FICA *had I invested it myself*.

I could see Social Security being truncated through some form of buyout, such as offering retirees a lump sum or an investment in a privately managed retirement pool. And sunsetting SS for very young current workers according to some sort of roll off formula.

Yeah, I'm familiar with vet care. Even that is hella expensive for specialized procedures. The level of due diligence would escalate for a human case and then you're back to unaffordability.

Progressives of the past did some great things to benefit the working class in the country, but the progressives of today think globally. They want to give up our sovereignty to global governance. They no longer care about the issues of the working people in this country. That makes them different from the Democrat/progressive party of the past.

SS and Medicare are real life savers for seniors. They're not perfect, but at least you have something when you get older. Most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about when they get older and maybe can't work anymore. Without those programs you'd have to resort to the charity of others.

I always thought Obamacare had too many regulations and failed to fix the healthcare problem of high costs. The plan my husband had at work wasn't accepted under Obamacare in 2012 or 13, so we lost our healthcare for a year. Instead, I still had access to Cobra from last job and chose that. It cost us about $10k for insurance that year under an Obamacare compliant policy. It didn't lower costs at all for me at that time, it increased them. I'm glad it worked for you but I ended up paying for coverage I didn't need.

Obama tried his best to bring about a single-payer system, but he never addressed the root problem of corruption in the health care industry to bring down costs. It did help some people but increased costs for others. The best thing would be to have both parties work together to improve people's lives, but it doesn't seem possible anymore.

I'm all for it.

I"m not a Bernie guy by any means but never saw any sense in having health insurance tied in with employers, especially since most people often switch employers. I figured single payer would encourage a lot of people to take a risk and become more entrepreneurial.

Another approach I would support would be to take health insurance out of medical for minor expenses. For example, you don't use your auto insurance to get an oil change on your vehicle. Health insurance should be there for high expense items.

The system has its flaws but Social Security and Medicare is better than nothing.

The problem with single payer is that its too expensive and then the quality of care suffers. Employer-based health care is good because they pay most of the cost of your coverage and you pay a smaller portion. I'll never forget when I went on Cobra after I lost my job years ago. My monthly payment went from $300 when I was employed to $700 on Cobra.

There used to be plans available that only provided catastrophic coverage, but Obamacare eliminated them. My husband had a plan like that at work. We had insurance through my company but after I lost my job, going on his plan wasn't an option because of Obamacare. Oh well.

I've lived on Social Security and Medicare for five years now and its been great as long as I supplement them. You can't rely on them for 100% of your needs but they're a Godsend for older people.

The problem with single payer is that its too expensive and then the quality of care suffers.

True. A guy I know from Canada is going in this week for a test due to a cough that he had 8 months ago and has since gotten over.

a straight conservative party line on any of these three programs never offers replacement that won't outrage a good part of the public.

Agreed.

I am baffled when some Republicans talk about ending Social Security and replacing it with "investing". Most people don't know how to invest nor care to learn. What a disaster this would be.

I am baffled when some Republicans talk about ending Social Security and replacing it with "investing". Most people don't know how to invest nor care to learn. What a disaster this would be.

Freedom! Freedom to starve, that is.

Social security is a mediocre income base. Or base income. It's essentially UBI for seniors that has been around for decades.

Nowhere do you see anyone, even the hardest lefties, claim that typical UBI payments would be anything close to a livable stipend. It's a cushion.

RSS Feed of thread

P.A.G.A.N. - People Against Goodness And Normalcy

Progressives Do a Few Absolutely Necessary Things Through Legislation (Public Board)