Jump to content

3rd Democratic Debate - Houston

Hank Kingsley

By Hank Kingsley
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

6th Street

6th Street 6579

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

Universal plans have universal buy in. If all Americans are on the same single payer plan, then it is much less likely to face cuts or elimination in the future. When you separate health care into two classes, there will always be demonization of the folks on "government" health care. It's the same reason that Bernie's free college and student loan forgiveness plans are preferable to means tested plans. We have to get away from segmenting Americans on essentials like healthcare and education. We provide them all to everyone. It benefits all Americans and it benefits our country.

It's a noble objective that sounds good on paper but is too much change for most Americans to handle and will likely hand Trump a 2nd term. The country is not full of Mahatma Gandhi's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

elfenix
elfenix

jesus christ altuve   edit: wrong thread

MaybeACoordinator
MaybeACoordinator
TexArcher
TexArcher

Castro also went hard after Pete in the first debate.  Every time Castro talks, I like him less, even when I agree with what he's saying.  The guy's a first-rate prick.  He's the male Hillary.

Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)

Those of you who are treating this like a health care referendum (i.e., most of you) are on the wrong track, in my opinion.   There is no health care plan on the ballot.   There isn't even a Brexit-like decision-sans-details on the ballot.   It would take a lot more than Bernie or Warren winning to actually get MFA enacted into law.  The public knows that. 

As I see it — and I think history bears this out — presidential elections are about vision, not policy details.  If it were otherwise, none of the people who are surviving because they are on Obamacare would have voted for Trump, who promised to repeal it immediately.  Yet many did, and articles afterwards showed that they didn't worry about the details because they trusted him to look out for their interests while policy was made. 

The American people will look for the same thing from the Democratic candidate:   what is their vision, and what does that mean about how strongly they will fight for me on each particular issue I care about?    In that sense, Biden is a total nullity on health care, and really everything else.  In my view, the public won't be stressing about private insurers disappearing overnight with an MFA candidate.   They're going to think, this person has health care as a top priority and will fight like hell for the best coverage at the lowest cost to me.  And that's going to pay off. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13540

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

I have fantastic insurance through my employer. The premium for myself and my family(wife and 3 kids) is paid 100% by my employer and the amount of my families deductible is put into an HSA for me at the beginning of every year. I literally have no out of pocket costs for medical expenses. 

 

BUT....

I support Medicare for All, and it's not something I'm willing to compromise on at all. Not because it will benefit me personally. In fact, it will most likely cost me and my family much more money. The reason I support MFA is because I know that 99% of Americans don't have anywhere near the coverage I have. Medicare for all will provide health insurance to all Americans. This is a moral issue for me. Our current system is immoral. It would be immoral for me to oppose something that would be life changing for millions of Americans because it might cost me a little more money.

MFA will hurt the future of healthcare in the US and actually the world as there are less profits available. I can get that we all think healthcare providers and companies should only be in the industry for altruistic reasons but that is naive. Profit has funded many of the advancements.

I also believe that current quality will suffer as well due to lower overall payments. I know MFA proponents say that lower admin costs will offset this but I haven’t seen anyone in the industry agree.  And that includes not for profit organizations. I’m open to seeing the data behind their claim. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just say Mexico will pay for it.  If people bought that, they will buy anything. 

No shit. They don't want to pay higher taxes but they're not crying about corporate bailouts, billions in relief for the farmers or our military getting screwed out of money to pay for the damn wall. There is several billion to go towards healthcare right there. Let's get companies like  Amazon to actually pay some taxes and maybe we can make Community Colleges nearly free. There's money to pay for some of these programs the dems want, but the current priorities on spending is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13540

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe you have a point because there are so many politicians in other democracies that run and win on advocating for a healthcare system modeled after the one in the United States.

Agree that most countries offer healthcare as a right. And they've all benefited from the fact that the majority of health care R&D via profits in the US. We can definitely lower ourselves to their levels.  quality will drop, and many future advancements will slow. 

And you won't get an argument from me that we need an overhaul of how we cost healthcare but swinging the pendulum to MFA isn't the right idea.  At least exhaust all options before going that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19120

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

It's a noble objective that sounds good on paper but is too much change for most Americans to handle and will likely hand Trump a 2nd term. The country is not full of Mahatma Gandhi's.

He's going to lose. Most Americans, even in the Rust Belt states he won, think he's a shitty president.

Also, Americans handle the shift to Medicare when they turn 65 just fine. Medicare for All will be no different.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13302

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

MFA will hurt the future of healthcare in the US and actually the world as there are less profits available. I can get that we all think healthcare providers and companies should only be in the industry for altruistic reasons but that is naive. Profit has funded many of the advancements.

Nations that pay far less out in profits get better results.

Thanks for concern trolling, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6583

Posted
Posted
MFA will hurt the future of healthcare in the US and actually the world as there are less profits available. I can get that we all think healthcare providers and companies should only be in the industry for altruistic reasons but that is naive. Profit has funded many of the advancements.
I also believe that current quality will suffer as well due to lower overall payments. I know MFA proponents say that lower admin costs will offset this but I haven’t seen anyone in the industry agree.  And that includes not for profit organizations. I’m open to seeing the data behind their claim. 
Ending the profiteering of insurance companies has no effect on quality of healthcare. Insurance companies exist to make a profit purely.
MFA wouldnt change the profit structure of providers nor deencentavise innovation. Develop a useful drug and you're getting, perhaps more so because you don't have insurance companies denying coverage of expense drugs or procedures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngryDragon

AngryDragon 270

Posted
Posted

Biden is such an unimpressive candidate who can barely string 2 coherent thoughts together so I guess people won't have that much to adjust to if he becomes president.

There's really only 2 candidates that stick out to me. Both for the same reason. Warren and Yang are extremely smart and have detailed policies to back up their rhetoric. Personally, I'm on the Yang train after reading more of his platform. HIs ideas may seem way out there t some but I think he's just way ahead of everyone else in terms of identifying problems and finding solutions. HIs solutions come with data/logic/science and after this abortion of a president I'm all for the exact opposite ( an Asian who likes math).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85752

Posted
Posted

FYI - The FEC has already said Yang's "sign up for money" thing is illegal. 

Quote

“Handing out money to individuals for their own personal use would seem to be a violation of campaign-finance law,” says Erin Chlopak, director of campaign finance strategy at the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC attorney. “It’s hard for me to envision how taking campaign funds and just handing it out to individuals would not violate the personal use prohibition.”

The Federal Election Commission prohibits the use of campaign money for “personal use.” Under the “irrespective test” the FEC uses as a guide to establish what constitutes as a personal expense, campaign funds may not be used for expenses that would exist regardless of whether the campaign existed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngryDragon

AngryDragon 270

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

FYI - The FEC has already said Yang's "sign up for money" thing is illegal. 

 

Yeah saw that. I think it's legal if he uses his own money to do this. If not the Reddit Founder said he would already do this for Yang if it turned out to be illegal. Also pretty brilliant way to get people to check out his platform on other issues. 

Edited by AngryDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

 

You think most people would rather keep paying their premiums in lieu of having their taxes increased even if their premium is greater than the increase to their taxes?  I don't think most people are that stupid.

The bolded part of your post - you sort of skipped an entire step. 

There are a lot of people who don't believe that (the bolded), and I think it's reasonable to be skeptical, because Bernie and possibly Warren are using funny math to back their claims up.

I'm going to use Bernie's plan, because he's the only one who has really laid out a comprehensive plan with funding, etc. He said himself that a middle class family could see their taxes go up by ~$10k to support M4A. And then said, "but, they'll save $20k in health insurance premiums", for a net of $10k. Makes sense and I buy the $20k number for premiums. The problem is for those that don't pay $20k/year because their employer pays all or most of it. 

What if someone is currently paying $5k/year via their employer-subsidized program? Then this program actually ends up costing them $5k/year. Bernie's math only works for people who don't receive some sort of healthcare plan through their work, which is less than half of the country. It hurts middle class white collar families, which I know some people will be happy about. But it will also hurt union workers, teachers, nurses, etc. 

Everyone understands the whole "you'll pay more taxes but less in premiums" thing. You guys can stop acting like you know something everyone else doesn't because you understand how to take revenue and expenses and net them out. Anyone with a checking account can do that. The issue is that said claim is bullshit for 60% of the country. That's why it's overwhelmingly unpopular.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

Yang has a link to amazon on his twitter bio pimping his book.  I’m sorry but I just can’t take Yang seriously as the leader of the free world.  He’s a smart and decent guy as far as I can tell but he has all these cheesy gimmicks where I’m like, “Is this just an awesome grift or is this guy serious?”  I lean towards the former. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85752

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AngryDragon said:

Yeah saw that. I think it's legal if he uses his own money to do this. If not the Reddit Founder said he would already do this for Yang if it turned out to be illegal. Also pretty brilliant way to get people to check out his platform on other issues. 

He's been doing it for like, a NH family, out of pocket.  But his thing last night was that it was from the campaign.  That is illegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngryDragon

AngryDragon 270

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yang has a link to amazon on his twitter bio pimping his book.  I’m sorry but I just can’t take Yang seriously as the leader of the free world.  He’s a smart and decent guy as far as I can tell but he has all these cheesy gimmicks where I’m like, “Is this just an awesome grift or is this guy serious?”  I lean towards the former. 

I think the gimmick is the only way he has a shot. He's the only candidate who's not a politician and he isn't a celebrity like Trump was. If he keeps hanging in there he can get his other policies out there too. They all make a ton of sense to me. He doesn't have much of a chance this election but in 4-8 years maybe he will have enough cred and experience at the time to make a real run. Maybe my bar is too low but smart and decent is all I want out of a politician ( on both sides). It would be miles ahead of what 90 percent of what this current climate is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33919

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The bolded part of your post - you sort of skipped an entire step. 

There are a lot of people who don't believe that, and I think it's reasonable to be skeptical, because Bernie and possibly Warren are using funny math to back their claims up.

I'm going to use Bernie's plan, because he's the only one who has really laid out a comprehensive plan with funding, etc. He said himself that a middle class family could see their taxes go up by ~$10k to support M4A. And then said, "but, they'll save $20k in health insurance premiums", for a net of $10k. Makes sense and I buy the $20k number for premiums. The problem is for those that don't pay $20k/year because their employer pays all or most of it. 

What if someone is currently paying $5k/year via their employer-subsidized program? Then this program actually ends up costing them $5k/year. Bernie's math only works for people who don't receive some sort of healthcare plan through their work, which is less than half of the country. It hurts middle class white collar families, which I know some people will be happy about. But it will also hurt union workers, teachers, nurses, etc. 

Everyone understands the whole "you'll pay more taxes but less in premiums" thing. You guys can stop acting like you know something everyone else doesn't because you understand how to take revenue and expenses and net them out. Anyone with a checking account can do that. The issue is that said claim is bullshit for 60% of the country. That's why it's overwhelmingly unpopular.

You sure about that?: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85752

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I find Yang's candidacy to be a good thing. He's bringing different ideas to the table.

But when/if he drops out, he'll need to get his hardcore supporters in line. They could be problematic if left unattended. 

The Yang Gang does seem a potential problem.  

I really really hope everyone gets their supporters in line immediately.  As in, "It didn't work out for us this time, but if you don't support THE NOMINEE (who is hopefully not Joe Biden), y'all are just selfishly getting Trump re-elected." 

Whether the nominee is Harris or a week old tuna fish sandwich that someone farted on and then got run over by a truck, I'm voting for it.  But enough about Biden. 

Edited by Js1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

You sure about that?: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

All you had to do was scroll down like 3 paragraphs, where they literally say the methodology of their own poll is flawed. Go to slide 13 where it shows that 55% of respondents falsely believe that single-payer means they get to keep their existing plan.

 

"Yet, it is unclear how much staying power this support has once people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side. Current KFF polling finds that Americans know little about how the leading Medicare-for-all proposals would reshape the way all Americans get and pay for health care (Figure 11) and public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 12). KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan (Figure 13), suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 14)."

 

 

 

Here's one where the respondents were actually provided clarity on their options. So yeah, I'm sure about that:

hillharrisx-1_feb7.png

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngryDragon

AngryDragon 270

Posted
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

The Yang Gang does seem a potential problem.  

I really really hope everyone gets their supporters in line immediately.  As in, "It didn't work out for us this time, but if you don't support THE NOMINEE (who is hopefully not Joe Biden), y'all are just selfishly getting Trump re-elected." 

I'm ready to vote for a week old tuna fish sandwich that someone farted on and then got run over by a truck.  But enough about Biden. 

I think the only problem comes from the number of former Trump supporters who have flipped strictly to the D side for Yang. He is the only one resonating with that group and their problems which doesn't really seem to fit the Surly D demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21087

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, AngryDragon said:

I think the only problem comes from the number of former Trump supporters who have flipped strictly to the D side for Yang. He is the only one resonating with that group and their problems which doesn't really seem to fit the Surly D demographic.

I think the Reddit culture and online community in general that has embraced Yang could be a problem. He's their pet project/experiment to see how far this campaign can go. I'm not seeing anything nefarious yet, but his movement continues to grow. 

Yang will need to talk them into supporting the eventual nominee. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

In my view, the public won't be stressing about private insurers disappearing overnight with an MFA candidate.   They're going to think, this person has health care as a top priority and will fight like hell for the best coverage at the lowest cost to me.  And that's going to pay off. 

well this is just a leap i have no faith in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85752

Posted
Posted

Reminder:

The choices here are:

  • Cover as many people as possible, whether it's MFA, single payer, MFA + private insurance, getting universal coverage under the ACA, what have you - there's multiple options to get universal or near universal coverage

or

  • Take healthcare away from people with pre-existing conditions and poor people and people of color who can't afford it with no actual plan in place after the ACA is gone 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Reminder:

The choices here are:

  • Cover as many people as possible, whether it's MFA, single payer, MFA + private insurance, getting universal coverage under the ACA, what have you - there's multiple options to get universal or near universal coverage

or

  • Take healthcare away from people with pre-existing conditions and poor people and people of color who can't afford it with no actual plan in place after the ACA is gone 

Yes, but Joe Scarborough and Mika Bimbo says every morning that Bernie and Liz are going to take away 160 million people’s private health insurance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6579

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The bolded part of your post - you sort of skipped an entire step. 

There are a lot of people who don't believe that (the bolded), and I think it's reasonable to be skeptical, because Bernie and possibly Warren are using funny math to back their claims up.

I'm going to use Bernie's plan, because he's the only one who has really laid out a comprehensive plan with funding, etc. He said himself that a middle class family could see their taxes go up by ~$10k to support M4A. And then said, "but, they'll save $20k in health insurance premiums", for a net of $10k. Makes sense and I buy the $20k number for premiums. The problem is for those that don't pay $20k/year because their employer pays all or most of it. 

What if someone is currently paying $5k/year via their employer-subsidized program? Then this program actually ends up costing them $5k/year. Bernie's math only works for people who don't receive some sort of healthcare plan through their work, which is less than half of the country. It hurts middle class white collar families, which I know some people will be happy about. But it will also hurt union workers, teachers, nurses, etc. 

Everyone understands the whole "you'll pay more taxes but less in premiums" thing. You guys can stop acting like you know something everyone else doesn't because you understand how to take revenue and expenses and net them out. Anyone with a checking account can do that. The issue is that said claim is bullshit for 60% of the country. That's why it's overwhelmingly unpopular.

It's a big problem and exactly why Warren has tried to avoid addressing the fact that a large percentage of Americans on employer sponsored plans will see costs INCREASE under her plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Reminder:

The choices here are:

  • Cover as many people as possible, whether it's MFA, single payer, MFA + private insurance, getting universal coverage under the ACA, what have you - there's multiple options to get universal or near universal coverage

or

  • Take healthcare away from people with pre-existing conditions and poor people and people of color who can't afford it with no actual plan in place after the ACA is gone 

I mean I think we all know that but what else would we jabber about and throw rocks at each other over if we didn't have this? 

M4A ain't happening anyway, not this time around. But it's interesting to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

It's a big problem and exactly why Warren has tried to avoid addressing the fact that a large percentage of Americans on employer sponsored plans will see costs INCREASE under her plan. 

I still don't think she's going to end up supporting full M4A removing private option in the end. She's incredibly smart and there's a reason she hasn't explicitly said she wants to remove private insurance as an option. Liz Warren doesn't do things on accident. 

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18318

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The fact Yang resonated with a section of Trump supporters so quickly is weird as fuck.  

I know.  It’s so weird that a subset of selfish, greedy assholes would support a guy whose campaign promise is to hand out free cash. 

Edited by BrickHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngryDragon

AngryDragon 270

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He has a (D) next to his name.  That’s the weird part. 

They all work in the sector of one of his biggest policy pushers (automation). Truck drivers, ff workers and retail. Anyone with eyes can see that's where the market is going. For the most part, that doesn't really apply to the Surly demo. I'd guess most of us would be on the other side of this equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13540

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Ending the profiteering of insurance companies has no effect on quality of healthcare. Insurance companies exist to make a profit purely.
MFA wouldnt change the profit structure of providers nor deencentavise innovation. Develop a useful drug and you're getting, perhaps more so because you don't have insurance companies denying coverage of expense drugs or procedures.

What industry do you work for?

i work for a large healthcare (hospital/doctor) group. We lose money on Medicaid patients, break even (at best) with Medicare patients, and fund the remaining financial need with commercial ins payers.  We’re also a non profit that funds a research arm.  

There’s a war out there to attract commercial ins patients. Eliminate that and patient care will drop. Eliminate the ACA and the quality component also goes. Because who cares then. Every patient will pay the same amount. There’s no incentive to go beyond basic care. 

Do you acknowledge that Medicare pays less than commercial insurance? 

Edit: once again I’m cool with an overhaul of healthcare  costs but like a large majority of Democrats I’m not in favor of Medicare for all regardless of personal cost.  You have to change the Medicare reimbursement rates which is not being part of the plans.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...