“I will lose my job when Bernie becomes president. Still voting for him.”

[BigBearJohn]

Joshua Hawken, a veteran and Reddit user, posted on the SandersForPresident subreddit titled “I will lose my job when Bernie becomes president. Still voting for him.” Hawken’s post was about how his job security as an employee of a private health insurance company will be threatened by a Sanders presidency. Hawken’s post quickly went viral, garnering nearly 3,000 upvotes in a matter of hours:

I’m an Air Force veteran and I’ve spent the last 5 years working for private insurance companies with most of that time dedicated to auditing previously paid claims so that we can take the money that was paid back due to… errors. I list hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims to be refunded every month. When Bernie becomes president and implements a Medicare-for-all single payer system my job will become null and void. I’m not mad though. In fact I’ve donated several times to him and he’s got my vote locked up. The private insurance business is a joke that doesn’t care one lick for any of their customers. The prices associated with private insurance will continue to soar in the future because private insurance companies simply do not have strong negotiating power with health care providers (i.e. doctors, hospitals, drug companies). Medicare has very high negotiating power with HCPs and Bernie’s system would be our best chance at having truly affordable health care.

Also when I lose my job because of the revolution I think I will just take the opportunity to go back to college since I should finally be able to afford it.

http://usuncut.com/politics/ill-lose-my-health-insurance-job-if-bernie-becomes-president/

[MADem]

1. An Air Force veteran should have the GI bill at his or her disposal.

He or she could have gone back to college previous to this.

[Cassiopeia]

3. Hmmm

I had no idea the GI Bill paid the rent or put food on the table or put gas in the car......

Must be nice to go through life with nothing but time and options.

[MADem]

7. You didn't do any research before you made that wise acre post.

But there IS a housing benefit included in the Bill, so... What was that you were saying about time and options? They even pay a housing allowance for people going to school full time ONLINE!!!!

You should do homework before you snark, yeah?

http://www.benefits.va.gov/GIBILL/resources/benefits_resources/rates/ch33/ch33rates080115.asp

Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) Payment Rates for 2015 Academic Year (August 1, 2015 - July 31, 2016)
The Post-9/11 GI Bill program is comprised of multiple payments. All payments and maximum amounts listed below are applicable to individuals eligible for the full benefit (100% eligibility tier).
The payment and maximum amounts listed will be prorated based on your eligibility percentage if you are not eligible for the full benefit. Under the Post-9/11 GI Bill you may receive:
Tuition and Fee Payments
Monthly Housing Allowance
Books and Supplies Stipend
One-Time Rural Benefit for Certain Veterans

[Ikonoklast]

20. You assume he hasn't already gone to school and used those benefits.

Got his education, and is now out in the workforce.

[MADem]

49. I don't 'assume' a thing. If he'd gone to college already, he wouldn't have said this:

Also when I lose my job because of the revolution I think I will just take the opportunity to go back to college since I should finally be able to afford it.


This just sounds, to my ear, like one of those "Cool Story, Bro" things you read on the internet. I don't find this essay terribly credible.

Unless this guy was flung out of the USAF on his ass, he should have had those benefits available to him.

I don't think Bernie's "free college" plan (which is unaffordable and Congress will not pass) includes a housing allowance....

But then, consider the source--every time I see that USUncut url I think first of an anti-circumcision campaign, and then I realize it's that site that shills for Sanders with unrestrained partisanship.

[HassleCat]

53. The GI Bill is limited

When I first went to college, the GI Bill paid me $480 a month, and that was enough to cover my tuition, books, rent, and a supply of Top Ramen. A few years later, it barley covered my tuition, but it was still a better deal than this new GI Bill, which seems overly complicated, and does not cover all veterans.

[MADem]

56. The new GI Bill covers tuition at any state school,

(and military people get in-state tuition no matter where they go), you get housing based on the zip code (and I can guarantee you it is more than the paltry amount you got) at the E-5 rate, it pays for four (or five--depending on the school, some are five year) years of tuition, plus books, plus fees.

You won't live large and you might need a part time job, but you'll get through college. I just saw a relative graduate this past year courtesy of the GI Bill--he worked about 20 hours a week during the school year, worked full time in summer and took a single course to speed things along, and he's debt free.

The post-911 GI Bill is much more generous than the Vietnam or Cold War ones. It's also transferable. You've got to move it or lose it, though--and that means if you don't use it--or you don't NEED it--you hand it off to a relative as soon as you get your 214 and take off the uniform.

Everyone knows this--except this "USAF vet" posting on reddit.

[kimbutgar]

33. My husbands nephew spent 2 years in the army, left early on a disability

But still gets his college tuition and a living stipend monthly. He hates president Obama with a passion. I pointed out to him that the Democrats have stopped the republicans from cutting those programs and he told me the republicans take better care of vets because he heard it from Rush Limbaugh.

I learned a long time ago, never argue with a fool !

[MADem]

50. Yes, he should be paid a housing allowance based on the zip code where he goes

to school, AND a little stipend for sundries like books and library fees. He should also get free tuition for up to five years (many college programs are five years now--those schools want that "extra" year of ca$h and dorm fees, too, for the on-campus types).

This guy's story doesn't add up.

[tazkcmo]

15. Several different "GI Bills"

Some provide more benefits than others. Mine provided enough benefits for about 2 1/2 years worth.

[MADem]

16. I should imagine, if this Air Force person has been hard at work in the

civilian sector for five years now, that his GI Bill is the VERY generous Post-911 version, not the Vietnam era or Cold War era version.

[tazkcmo]

17. Imagine what ever you want

Fact is, we know nothing of his level of benefits awarded.

[MADem]

52. Yes, we do--he is post 911 GI bill (if he was even in the service at all, and I am

starting to doubt that).

I went to Reddit and read the thread there. He's telling everyone he wants to "save" "his" GI Bill and hand it down to his FIVE year old kid. He should know that he's running out of time to hand those benefits off to a relative, and he should know that a five year old won't be old enough before those benefits go POOF.

He also has a boneheaded idea that the GI bill only covers an associate's degree, which isn't true--it covers tuition, a housing allowance, fees for books, registration, library, etc., and it's good for up to five years, if the school is a five-year one. He could not have gotten INTO the military or gotten OUT of it without hearing this stuff--it's part of in-processing and out-processing.

This IS a "Cool Story Bro" posting--how unsurprising that USUncut would uncritically pass it on, when a cursory look at it makes it obvious that it is utter horseshit.

[arcane1]

51. Attacking the messenger. Classy. n/t

[MADem]

54. Who's attacking the messenger? This USAF vet isn't telling the truth.

That is not an attack, it is fact.

You, too, can look up the available GI Bill benefits with two clicks of a mouse button. They aren't secret.

The thing is, though, this "USAF vet" should KNOW them, at least the broad outlines, without missing a beat. Yet he is laboring under some critical misapprehensions and he's gone and published them at the reddit site, which has kind of "outed" him as someone who doesn't have their story straight--to put it kindly.

[Hoyt]

2. Actually, his job responsibilities happen with Medicare and it's performed by private insurance

companies who have administered Medicare for decades.

I do agree that a single payer system should have better negotiating power, but private insurance companies currently pay providers very close to Medicare rates in most places and do a better job of coordinating care. The point is not that private insurers are better, but that Medicare for all will not produce enough savings for Americans to go, "oh boy, I'm getting such value for my health insurance premium (or taxes) that I won't grouse any more."

[merrily]

6. Grousing by citizens is a standard for deciding about Medicare for all now? smh

Private insurers do a better job of "coordinating care?" What does that even mean and what is the proof?

The point is not that private insurers are better, but that Medicare for all will not produce enough savings for Americans to go, "oh boy, I'm getting such value for my health insurance premium (or taxes) that I won't grouse any more."

Conservative figures say that Medicare for all will cost people $1200 less a year. Not only is grousing a silly standard, but I'd love to know which crystal ball is telling you that people won't grouse less if they save $1200 a year.

[Ed Suspicious]

9. It's completely fucked up. Coordinating care! Is that a joke? I see so many different doctors

each largely unaware of what the other knows. I need to communicate my treatment, I can't price shop for shit. My doc gets irritated because he prescribes something and I have to stop him to go and check on drug costs and copays. I'm diabetic and unemployed so very often I need to go without my medication. I have different pharmacies for different drugs because cost of copays varies. Nobody would design a system like this. This healthcare system for anyone who has a chronic illness is BEYOND fucked up. I'm rambling here because I'm seeing too much fire in my eyes at the moment over the idea that private insurance does it better. Our healthcare system is a hodgepodge of incongruous cowshit.

[Tanuki]

19. Ed, please check out the website of this non-profit, which helps people in your situation

find affordable or even free meds. Good luck!
http://www.needymeds.org/

[Ed Suspicious]

22. Thank you for the link and the well wishes. I really do appreciate it.

Unfortunately;

"We Need Your Support
NeedyMeds is proud to announce that through the Generic Assistance Program nearly 2,000 people received their generic medication for free for an entire year! We now find ourselves in the sad position of making another announcement: as of midnight, Dec. 31, 2015, we have suspended acceptance of applications unless or until more funds are raised. Help us continue this program by making a donation to the GAP Campaign on our medical crowdfunding website, HEALfundr and spread the word by sharing this link on your social media outlets. Join us in helping people and families most in need have a healthy 2016."

Universal, single payer health care will put these guys out of business and I'm sure they would be AOK with that problem!

[Tanuki]

24. I am so sorry. But you might still find something helpful in their links. They have

diagnosis-related resource links, and you might find a program listed under "Diabetes" that might have something to offer. I hope so.

[Ed Suspicious]

25. Thanks. I'll check it out.

[Tanuki]

29. Your post is a good example of the short-sighted, penny-wise and pound-foolish approach

to health care. Aside from the basic human decency of making sure we are all as safe and healthy as possible, providing you with appropriate medications now would be so much more cost effective than treating any complications that you might develop down the road that could have been prevented.

[MADem]

57. Don't ever go without your meds.

Reach out to the ST. Vincent de Paul Society in your local area. They can help you with costs if you can't afford your prescriptions. You don't have to be catholic and you don't have to sit through any sermons. You don't have to pay them back (I imagine if you hit the lottery and made a donation to them, they'd appreciate it, though).

That IS what they do--they help people in a bad way. Hope your situation improves.

[mac2766]

21. A great way to describe the healthcare industry in America.

Ed Suspicious, your reply needs to be read by everyone.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. What's worse is there is no price list! Every inquiry about prescription pricing needs to be run

individually. So while the pharmacy is being blasted with customers, I need to pull a pharmacy tech away to check on the price of the individual drug I was prescribed. If I cannot afford it I need to go back to the doctor to have him prescribe something else only to have to repeat the process. Nobody in the healthcare industry is upfront with their pricing. Nobody pays the same price. Nobody is charged the same copay. It's not quite possible to act as a thinking healthcare consumer. The walls have been built to prevent it. The current system thrives on confusion. I wish I could sell widgets that people HAD TO HAVE OR THEY DIE in the same way! I'd be fucking rich beyond my wildest dreams!

Don't get me started on shopping for a doctor!

[Hoyt]

35. Try Kaiser if available on your area.

[a2liberal]

10. "coordinating care" is a insurance industry euphemism

For finding ways to deny "excessive" care like requiring layers of referrals to see a specialist you need, or making you check in every month with a company rep in a "disease management" program so they can take a look at what you're taking to manage your disease and figure out how to overrule your doctor's medical judgment to save money while at the same time sounding like they're concerned about you.

So no surprise that a poster trying to claim that private insurance is better than Medicare would be using that industry term...

[merrily]

13. The entire reply (meaning Reply 2) is a stunning piece of work. nt

[Hoyt]

36. You want reasonable cost, that's part of the equation. And one reason I don't think

Medicare for all will go over well with a lot of folks.

[Hoyt]

39. Ok, how many folks are going to be happy paying $600 - 700 a month per person.

Not many, and that's what it will cost. And as Medicare is forced to ratchet down cost, people will complain because their doc, test, or brand name drug, is no longer covered.

Like I said, I'm fine with Medicare for all. I don't think a lot of people will be fine with it when they have it.

[merrily]

40. Moving the goal post doesn't work either. Your prior post admitted they'd save $$, just

not enough, according to you to stop grousing. I just love it when I reply to everything in a post and the poster ignores everything I've said and raises new issue Sure sign a good faith discussion is not on the menu.

And, as you know the relevant issue is not what they will pay, but whether what they will pay will be more, less or the same as it is now.

Like I said, I'm fine with Medicare for all.

Your posts say otherwise.

I don't think a lot of people will be fine with it when they have it.

Because they'll object to paying less, which you've already said they will? Are they fine with private insurance?

And as Medicare is forced to ratchet down cost, people will complain because their doc, test, or brand name drug, is no longer covered.

This happens with private insurance and, again, which crystal ball are using?

[Hoyt]

42. Nope, the relevant topic is will they perceive it is better. I doubt many Republicans will.

I think people who have not had access to care will like it, if they don't have to pay much or anything. Others will gripe if for no other reason lack of dental and similar coverage, similar premiums, etc.

There is a reason Vermont backed out of single payer.

[merrily]

44. Move the goal post, change the "relevant topic." Great strategies.

More signs authentic discussion is not on the menu.

[Oilwellian]

58. All states had to postpone implementing single payer

ACA now prevents states from implementing single payer, and that's why Vermont postponed planning for it. It's been discussed many times. You are pushing dishonest propaganda.

In 2017, states will be able to get a waiver to set up their own approved health care solutions, as long as they meets the standards of the Affordable Care Act. This will technically allow states to implement single payer systems on a state level, Vermont has already stated this is the direction they will take. Single payer systems are typically thought of something handled by the federal government, but in America it more likely that we will see single payer on a state level first.

http://obamacarefacts.com/single-payer/

[Hoyt]

59. You need to keep up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

[artislife]

31. I used to do billing for chiropractic offices

About 4 years ago, one of the main insurance providers got a "clearing house" or whatever they called it to start to handle the claims. I thought," What? To do the main job of Insurance? Their job would be just to decide and mete out payments to the doctor."

Well the patients all the sudden went from having $32 covered to $12 for a particular code. This caused their out of pocket to rise. The reply from the Insurance company..."You need to call the other guys, we don't handle that." It happened in the summer. So, basically their insurance changed without the patient choosing what the insurance would pay for benefits they thought they covered. Well the doctor wasn't going to eat the cost, he was way over extended, so he passed on the bill to the patients. Voila', their out of pocket went up.

Later, the portal to most of the insurances was created and at first it was very easy to see claims all together under a person's id number. Then it began to be a labyrinth to find claims and eobs. They just think up shit to make it as murky as possible and harder to follow. They want to directly deposit funds, this takes a check system out, which was pretty easy to crosscheck. What it did was take a glass and shatter it into a million slivers, so it was easier for shards to get lost, and thus easier to overlook if they weren't re-imbursed.

I hate insurance companies, they are right up there with drug companies and banksters as the greatest con artists that the average person is at the mercy of on a regular basis.

[Hoyt]

37. Well, insurance companies will administer Medicare for all.

[merrily]

41. Source?

[Hoyt]

46. Look up Medicare Administrative Contractors. Obviously, you know little about Medicare.

[merrily]

60. You made a prediction about the future, though.

[Hoyt]

61. Why would anyone expand Medicare to 300 Million people and fire the people who have

been administering the program for 40 years, not to mention who have the systems to pay claims, etc? Doesn't take a genius to predict that won't happen.

[merrily]

62. You've made a lot of assumptions about the future of Medicare for All, all negative.

from "grousing" to administration.

[Hoyt]

63. Maybe you ought to think about the future a bit.

[merrily]

64. Maybe you should stop bashing Medicare for All while saying you're fine with it.

Hmmm. Maybe this much more about Hillary v. Bernie than about Medicare for All.

[Hoyt]

65. Maybe you ought to at least be honest about how Medicare for all would likely

operate, what it would cost, what we'll have to pay, why Vermont tried for single payer but abandoned it, etc. I would like Medicare for All, but again people won't find it much less expensive than the ACA, insurance companies will still be involved, there are big coverage gaps in Medicare including dental and 20% coinsurance with no out-of-pocket cap unless you pay extra for supplemental insurance, etc. We'd all be better off with it, just a lot of people are too stupid to see it.

[merrily]

66. A program cheaper than the ACA is no good and I'm the one being dishonest?

You've admitted in every post it will be cheaper than ACA, yet you keep crapping on it. Sorry, but, again, I think this about Hillary and therefore discussing Medicare for All with you is silly. Have a great, honest evening.

[Hoyt]

67. Not much cheaper, and too many people still won't be satisfied.

[merrily]

68. I've already responded to that baseless and meaningless prediction twice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511009534#post6

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1010428

Going in a circle, esp. after many hours have passed = another sign good faith discussion is not on the menu.

[Hoyt]

69. I bet you won't be happy paying $600-750 a month for Medicare in premiums or taxes.

[merrily]

70. I bet your zeal to diss the LESS expensive program is about Hillary, not health care.

[Hoyt]

73. You still will gripe.

[merrily]

74. Actually, you're the one who's been griping while claiming others will. Ironic.nt

[artislife]

45. But they won't be making the rules. nt

[Hoyt]

47. Oh they do make rules within broad regulations, not unlike ACA. And then there are 30%

of Medicare beneficiaries who sign up for Medicare Advantage Plans that are sold by private insurers. Why do they choose that, because it is often a better deal than traditional Medicare.

[artislife]

48. They make the rules on what is acceptable and how information is disseminated

But you seem to LOVE them.

That's nice. The problem is that is changes from state to state and whether you are in a large company or small business or just an individual.

I think benefits bound to one's employment is a form of indentured service. I think that that is how large companies have an uneven hand in the game. I know lots of people who have one spouse who has the job that they shouldn't quit because of the benefits alone.

I don't like that. I don't like that I told my brother to stick with a shitty job because he had had cancer and before the ACA he most likely wouldn't be able to get new coverage. Perhaps that job helped him be sicker than he would have been.

But I see your posts and the fact that you have an avatar of a Woody is hysterical. Because it is so not representative of your stand on this issue at least.

[Hoyt]

55. I agree, benefits should not be tied to employment. You are not reading me accurately.

I'm saying that I'm for Medicare for all, but a lot of people will not be happy with it much more, if any more, than what they have now. For example, with a private insurer your maximum out of pocket cost is capped at $6000. With Medicare it can be a million dollars unless you purchase a supplement. The coinsurance on one hospitalization will bankrupt most people. And, to make it affordable when we pick up the uninsured, which we must do, the government is going to have to start saying no to providers And patients.

[Bernblu]

72. This may true but the Government will control cost and oversee the administrators who are hired as

contractors by Medicare.

[DFW]

4. Wouldn't that be great?

"When Bernie becomes president and implements a Medicare-for-all single payer system......"

If we had a benevolent dictator system, he could do it all by himself, too. But we don't. If the POTUS could do that all on his own, we would have had it on January 21, 2009--which is exactly why we won't have it on January 21, 2017, either.

To do that, even a president Sanders would need a little help from his friends (or whatever term the next president uses to describe members of Congress, and I suspect it won't be "friends," no matter who it is).

[merrily]

5. Those working for health insurers now can do the same work for the government when Medicare for All

becomes law. They will have better job security, too.

It would make no sense for the federal government to bypass people who are in place with experience in the field, only to have to recruit and train new people. It makes sense for the federal government to offer jobs to those currently employed by private insurers.

[djean111]

8. The "people will lose their jobs" is just a scare tactic.

The people who are braying this, IMO, also support H-1B visas, and the TPP lowering American wages and taking American jobs. The are not speaking out of their mouths, but from another part of their anatomy. They consider that solar energy is bad because it will put monolithic power companies out of business. At the bottom, only concern for profits, not people.

[a2liberal]

11. There will be less work though in the Reddit poster's field

They will only be looking for actual fraudulent claims, not looking for reasons to deny legitimate ones.

[merrily]

12. Attrition.

[TexasBushwhacker]

18. The high paid executives might lose their jobs

and I couldn't care less.

[Tanuki]

23. Ain't that the truth!

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/top-health-insurance-ceo-pay-exceeds-10-million-2014/2015-04-10

"Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 million
Bertolini's 2014 base salary was $996,169, according to Aetna's SEC filing. He also earned nearly $1.7 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, nearly $400,000 in other compensation and close to $12 million in stock and option awards. Bertolini earned more than twice as much in 2013--$30.7 million--thanks to nearly $28 million in stocks and options.


Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 million
Swedish received a base salary of $1.25 million in 2014, according to Anthem's SEC filing. In addition, he earned more than $2.1 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, about $140,000 in other compensation and $10 million in stock and option awards. Swedish earned nearly $17 million in 2013.


Cigna CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
The Cigna SEC filing indicated that Cordani received a base salary of $1.125 million in 2014, along with $1.9 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, about $240,000 in other compensation and $11 million in stock and option awards. This compares to $12.9 million in 2012 and $13.5 million in 2013.


Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
Broussard took home a base salary of more than $1.1 million in 2014, his first full year as both the company's CEO and president, according to Humana's SEC filing. He also earned nearly $1.7 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, close to $600,000 in other compensation and about $6.75 million in stock and option awards. Broussard earned $8.8 million in 2013 and $2.8 million in 2012, his first full year as president of Humana.


UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million
Helmsley's 2014 base salary was $1.3 million, according to UnitedHealth's SEC filing. On top of that, he earned nearly $4 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, more than $100,000 in other compensation and about $9.5 million in stocks and options. Helmsley earned $12 million in 2013 and nearly $13.9 million in 2012."

[thesquanderer]

14. Sometimes it's good to vote against your own self-interest (n/t)

[Motown_Johnny]

27. The government will need people to work in the new single payer system...

and an Air Force veteran who has experience in the health insurance industry seems like a pretty good prospect to me.

Especially if he/she is someone willing to put aside his/her own self interest to help the people being served.

Is there some way to Rec a person? If so, I would like to do that please.

[randome]

28. Just like that, huh? Cool story.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Ed Suspicious]

34. These sort of posts are poisonous.

[randome]

38. Disagree. If all we needed was a bully pulpit, then why hasn't Obama been able to do more?

It takes more than a pulpit to 'shame' the GOP into acting. Much more.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[FSogol]

43. Did you mean to say "realistic" in lieu of "poisonous?"

[TacoD]

30. I work in the health insurance industry (for consulting firm not insurer) and have zero fear

of losing my job when Bernie becomes president.

[Siwsan]

32. There will still be a need for people to do the same insurance industry related jobs

I used to credential physicians for a private health insurance company. There are federal employees who do the same thing. As a veteran, Joshua can take a civil service exam and, as a veteran, he gets credit towards his score and I think there is 'preferential' hiring perk there, too. Then he could apply for any job openings. At least that's how it used to work.

[Bernblu]

71. This is true.

While some people will lose their jobs and the CEOs will lose their fat pay checks. they'll also be plenty of new jobs in firms hired by Medicare to do the same type of work done by insurance companies. Medicare does not do everything with government employees. It is even possible that some of the current insurance companies will re-purpose themselves and be contracted out by medicare.

[Enthusiast]

75. Kicked and recommended!