2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13,479]

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

pro-tip: consider decaf a couple days a week. 

How is Pete going to pay for Medicare for everyone who will Want It?

How is Pete going to guarantee my health insurance choices remain available under his plan?

[henrygandorf 29,218]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How is Pete going to pay for Medicare for everyone who will Want It?

i don’t know anymore than you know, it’s his corporate tax reform plan and $1.5t over 10 years. all i can tell you is what he’s released, i have no insider information. of course, you already knew all this.

oh no, i’ve set myself up!  blast posting finally paid off and now everyone will be forced to reevaluate you!

we’re at the star wars thing now so i may be off-thread for a few hours  enjoy your saturday, and may the force be with you.

 

[bad_teammate 13,479]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

i don’t know anymore than you know, it’s his corporate tax reform plan and $1.5t over 10 years. all i can tell you is what he’s released, i have no insider information. of course, you already knew all this.

What, I don't have the RIGHT to concern troll about Pete's financing like you do about Warren?? Am I being ROBBED of my FREEDOMS of speech?

So much for shitliberal tolerance.

[henrygandorf 29,218]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What, I don't have the RIGHT to concern troll about Pete's financing like you do about Warren?? Am I being ROBBED of my FREEDOMS of speech?

So much for shitliberal tolerance.

yikes. 

[bad_teammate 13,479]

Why do you think Pete is scared to talk about how he is going to actually fund all of his proposals? Do you think he doesn't actually intend to follow through with them/fight for them?

[Js1 86,938]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

---

As for women and minority candidates being furious about a white guy with zero track record getting attention over them... uh... think about it for a few seconds.

The Pete Buttigieg campaign is white identity politics for NPR liberals.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

It’s about to get weird folks

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

So things like “take away your private health insurance” isn’t Republican scaremonger framing of a single payer healthcare system?   Because Pete loves that talking point. 

I love it too, because it’s true.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Remember when the people of France rose up to protect their private health insurance plans?  Shit was wild. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

Again, Hugo. What’s your goal? My goal is universal healthcare and cost control.

 

Also. Just so you know- France has private health insurance.

 

Also on your chart- Switzerland is almost exclusively private.

 

Also on your chart- Germany is extensively private.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

You can’t seriously be arguing France, Germany, or Switzerland’s healthcare system is even remotely close what we have here in the US.

Goal?  I’ll take anyone of those systems tomorrow because they all remove the profit motive from health insurance. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

You can’t seriously be arguing France, Germany, or Switzerland’s healthcare system is even remotely close what we have here in the US.
Goal?  I’ll take anyone of those systems tomorrow because they all remove the profit motive from health insurance. 

I’m am not arguing any such thing and this is what makes you and BT and progressive maximalists in General so tiresome on this topic- you engage healthcare policy with the same depth and substance of Rush Limbaugh or Charlie Kirk’s audience, except you promote the strawmen they knock down.

Also, no, none of those systems “remove the profit motive” from health insurance. Sorry. They just incentivize and disincentivize different things from our system.

Democrats are better off when we argue from our values and win on the what and THEN hash out the how. We lose when we argue the outcome and run on the how.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Love getting compared to Rush Limbaugh in the morning.  I try not to engage with you on this topic because you’re not being completely honest when you debate it but I’m not sure you realize it.  You live in a world where incrementalism is a workable approach to healthcare when we have 40+ years of evidence that it has done nothing but make our healthcare and political system worse and more broken.  One thing we haven’t tried is a radical change approach, except not radical, just like what every other developed country does.  

Again, healthcare should not be the #1 issue for voters in America because we are objectively the wealthiest country on earth.  But somehow it is because people calling for dramatic solution get pejoratively called “progressive maximalists.”

Debating healthcare with you is like debating on the best way to pull off the moon landing in 1965 with you arguing that it’s an impossible pipe dream and we should shoot for a more realistic goal. 

[Anastasis 23,699]

 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Remember when the people of France rose up to protect their private health insurance plans?  Shit was wild. 

 

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You can’t seriously be arguing France, Germany, or Switzerland’s healthcare system is even remotely close what we have here in the US.

Goal?  I’ll take anyone of those systems tomorrow because they all remove the profit motive from health insurance. 

 

This is like reading the output from a random talking point generator.  

[Anastasis 23,699]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Love getting compared to Rush Limbaugh in the morning.  I try not to engage with you on this topic because you’re not being completely honest when you debate it but I’m not sure you realize it. 

This is great. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,598]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Love getting compared to Rush Limbaugh in the morning.  I try not to engage with you on this topic because you’re not being completely honest when you debate it but I’m not sure you realize it.  You live in a world where incrementalism is a workable approach to healthcare when we have 40+ years of evidence that it has done nothing but make our healthcare and political system worse and more broken.  One thing we haven’t tried is a radical change approach, except not radical, just like what every other developed country does.  

Again, healthcare should not be the #1 issue for voters in America because we are objectively the wealthiest country on earth.  But somehow it is because people calling for dramatic solution get pejoratively called “progressive maximalists.”

Debating healthcare with you is like debating on the best way to pull off the moon landing in 1965 with you arguing that it’s an impossible pipe dream and we should shoot for a more realistic goal. 

What the fuck did I just read 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[ChiTownDoc 21,323]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

What the fuck did I just read 

He’s still drunk from the game.  It’s understandable.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He’s still drunk from the game.  It’s understandable.  

This is true. Apologies for regarded post, I’m too exhausted to debate the intricacies of Western European healthcare policy and why their populations aren’t living with a predatory healthcare industry they want to abolish. 

[David Dennison 19,441]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is true. Apologies for regarded post, I’m too exhausted to debate the intricacies of Western European healthcare policy and why their populations aren’t living with a predatory healthcare industry they want to abolish. 

It probably has to do with the fact that their healthcare isn't a huge part of their pay package.

Just a hunch.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,707]

Annoying when some progressives treat healthcare access/coverage in some binary: you’re for the status quo or we need to emulate some unnamed country’s system. I haven’t seen anyone argue that the current system doesn’t need incremental if not major changes especially on cost.

obamacare was a good experiment but zero changes have been allowed since even though both sides sometimes want the exact same change.  Coverage and access have moved in the right direction but costs need to be addressed. Not just forcing lower costs on doctors, hospitals, etc but working with them to find better options.

And it’s too simplistic to say that our medical industry just needs to replicate European countries. Especially when the average patient doesn’t want that as well.  But the attitude from too many progressives is that the average person is ignorant and other know what is  best for them.

[Incredulity 11,861]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Annoying when some progressives treat healthcare access/coverage in some binary: you’re for the status quo or we need to emulate some unnamed country’s system. I haven’t seen anyone argue that the current system doesn’t need incremental if not major changes especially on cost.

obamacare was a good experiment but zero changes have been allowed since even though both sides sometimes want the exact same change.  Coverage and access have moved in the right direction but costs need to be addressed. Not just forcing lower costs on doctors, hospitals, etc but working with them to find better options.

And it’s too simplistic to say that our medical industry just needs to replicate European countries. Especially when the average patient doesn’t want that as well.  But the attitude from too many progressives is that the average person is ignorant and other know what is  best for them.

Obamacare can’t fairly be evaluated, mainly because it never was close to fully implemented due to political cowardice.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

59 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m am not arguing any such thing and this is what makes you and BT and progressive maximalists in General so tiresome on this topic- you engage healthcare policy with the same depth and substance of Rush Limbaugh or Charlie Kirk’s audience, except you promote the strawmen they knock down.

 

This is hilarious, because you're the guy who runs away as soon as you're asked any kind of detailed questions about Wyden-Bennett, because at the end of the day it's the government taking our money in direct taxation and giving it to private insurance companies. Oh, and the small detail that it's not actually universal healthcare because it doesn't even pretend to want to achieve 100% coverage.

Run away from questions -> Disappear for awhile -> Re-appear talking about how you want serious, detailed discussion -> Get questions -> Run away from questions 

in an endless loop.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

obamacare was a good experiment

Obamacare would have been a good experiment if it had a public option but since it didn’t, it made it even more clear that campaigning on a public option is an empirically proven failed approach to healthcare (but not political campaigns...yet.)  Bill Clinton tried it and failed.  Obama tried it and failed.  

The response to Obamacare also illustrated what the response to a public option would be, it would be actively sabotaged by the health insurance industry to maximize profits.  To progressives, the solution to healthcare is some form of a single payer system and that’s why they advocate for it as opposed to some compromised treatment to a disease that is sold as some road to a cure.  We could debate how we get to universal healthcare all fucking day but the first step is advocating for the destination instead of a band aid on a gunshot wound.  

The hyper politicization of healthcare is a tragedy in itself but with it we must deal.  

[bad_teammate 13,479]

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And it’s too simplistic to say that our medical industry just needs to replicate European countries.

Agreed, which is one of the reasons M4A is great because it's not just a copy of European systems. It's its own idea based upon expanding an extremely successful and popular American program.

[Message Board User 12,405]

Lot of troof in this statement.

[Anastasis 23,699]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Agreed, which is one of the reasons M4A is great because it's not just a copy of European systems. It's its own idea based upon expanding an extremely successful and popular American program.

Except M4A is not related to Medicare in any sense other then it borrows the name "Medicare".  And this isn't a comment about MA.  It's a comment about almost every single aspect of FFS Medicare, from it's administration to its funding mechanism to its cost sharing strategies. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Anastasis

[Hank Kingsley 21,598]

13 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Lot of troof in this statement.

She definitely made a good case for herself.

Pivoting to sexism as a way to undermine Buttigieg's campaign success so far is really weak.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Pivoting to sexism as a way to undermine Buttigieg's campaign success so far is really weak

How can you tell?  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

Love getting compared to Rush Limbaugh in the morning.  I try not to engage with you on this topic because you’re not being completely honest when you debate it but I’m not sure you realize it.  You live in a world where incrementalism is a workable approach to healthcare when we have 40+ years of evidence that it has done nothing but make our healthcare and political system worse and more broken.  One thing we haven’t tried is a radical change approach, except not radical, just like what every other developed country does.  
Again, healthcare should not be the #1 issue for voters in America because we are objectively the wealthiest country on earth.  But somehow it is because people calling for dramatic solution get pejoratively called “progressive maximalists.”
Debating healthcare with you is like debating on the best way to pull off the moon landing in 1965 with you arguing that it’s an impossible pipe dream and we should shoot for a more realistic goal. 

I’m not comparing you to Rush Limbaugh. I’m comparing you to one of his listeners and the rest of your post is a great example of what I’m talking about.

I don’t think monopsony single payer is a “pipe dream.” I think it’s a 1965 approach to a 2019 problem and wouldn’t work as well as a German style multipayer or tax funded Swiss style private exchange. Thats why virtually all countries with a government healthcare monopsony have gradually liberalized their systems to decrease multiple categories of float. Either of those would achieve everything a monopsony can do, faster and cheaper than a monopsony, in addition to being less difficult politically.

Honesty? You already said you would take any one of the French, German or Swiss system, but you drag Buttgieg for advocating something that would do what those systems do and then accuse me of “incrementalism?” I’ve spent the last 20 years calling for a truly radical restructuring of the healthcare market, and half the people on this particular board have been reading my screeds about it going back that long. So, uh, false.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Except M4A is not related to Medicare in any sense other then it borrows the name "Medicare".  And this isn't a comment about MA.  It's a comment about almost every single aspect of FFS Medicare, from it's administration to its funding mechanism to its cost sharing strategies. 

I'm impressed that the Shillsignal is so visible even in the morning sunshine.

23 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Lot of troof in this statement.

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’ve spent the last 20 years calling for a truly radical restructuring of the healthcare market, and half the people on this particular board have been reading my screeds about it going back that long.

Why do you say you want universal coverage and then promote a plan that doesn't achieve universal coverage while attacking plans that DO achieve universal coverage?

[Hank Kingsley 21,598]

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

On 11/9/2019 at 9:07 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

He's not pandering to Trumpublicans. This is a BS talking point. He's welcoming Republicans "with a conscience".  He is not going to talk negatively about voters, but he will (and has repeatedly) called out Republicans in Congress.

Yes, Pete has brought this whole contending in Iowa and moving up in the polls with high favorability on himself. What a dumbass.  He had a clear path to the nomination with 0% name recognition 8 months ago and is fucking it up in real time. 

 

 

Right but he's literally Mitt Romney though. Didn't you get the memo?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

Except M4A is not related to Medicare in any sense other then it borrows the name "Medicare".  And this isn't a comment about MA.  It's a comment about almost every single aspect of FFS Medicare, from it's administration to its funding mechanism to its cost sharing strategies. 

That’s what makes it a great brand though. If you are a Democrat and it’s something you like you should call it “Medicare for All”

[bad_teammate 13,479]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s what makes it a great brand though. If you are a Democrat and it’s something you like you should call it “Medicare for All”

How will Wyden-Bennett raise funds to pay for administering healthcare?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

She definitely made a good case for herself.
Pivoting to sexism as a way to undermine Buttigieg's campaign success so far is really weak.

The whole “Bernie/Obama Bro” thing was a huge success for Clinton. Warren’s people should call the Pete supporters “Butt Brothers”. That’s hilarious and winning right?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

How will Wyden-Bennett raise funds to pay for administering healthcare?

Taxes and employer payments, which would be fantastic.

[Incredulity 11,861]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Right but he's literally Mitt Romney though. Didn't you get the memo?

Well Mitt Romney was an authoritarian NAZI in 2012...according to MSM.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Taxes and employer payments, which would be fantastic.

What do we do with the people who will remain uncovered by Wyden-Bennett?

[Anastasis 23,699]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm impressed that the Shillsignal is so visible even in the morning sunshine.

Speaking of endless loops of posting behaviors. 

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s what makes it a great brand though. If you are a Democrat and it’s something you like you should call it “Medicare for All”

That's exactly right. M4A is just marketing.  BT is smart enough to know that, but that doesn't stop him from promoting M4A as "expanding an extremely successful and popular American program."  If you point out that that is not an accurate statement and it is just puff, you are a shill. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m not comparing you to Rush Limbaugh. I’m comparing you to one of his listeners and the rest of your post is a great example of what I’m talking about.

I don’t think monopsony single payer is a “pipe dream.” I think it’s a 1965 approach to a 2019 problem and wouldn’t work as well as a German style multipayer or tax funded Swiss style private exchange. Thats why virtually all countries with a government healthcare monopsony have gradually liberalized their systems to decrease multiple categories of float. Either of those would achieve everything a monopsony can do, faster and cheaper than a monopsony, in addition to being less difficult politically.

Honesty? You already said you would take any one of the French, German or Swiss system, but you drag Buttgieg for advocating something that would do what those systems do and then accuse me of “incrementalism?” I’ve spent the last 20 years calling for a truly radical restructuring of the healthcare market, and half the people on this particular board have been reading my screeds about it going back that long. So, uh, false.

I plead hung over.  

 I think we are two ships sailing past each other with the same destination in this debate. You are arguing more on a policy level and I’m arguing more on a political level. 

Your framework assumes the policy should lead to the politics and my position is the politics should lead to the policy.  Healthcare legislation isn’t written by presidential candidates.  It’s written by legislators and my position is the road to the best legislation is leadership by political movements advocating for the destination instead of a road to a solution.  

I flex on Pete because I disagree with his approach to getting to a solution.  He might have the most reasonable and realistic policy proposal legislatively but he’s advocating from an already compromised position if his true destination is a single payer system.  He does this for his own political expediency all while punching left at the campaigns showing more political courage than him by advocating for a destination instead of a compromise.  He is free to do that and I’m free to call him out on it.  Many might find his pitch more appealing, I do not.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

What do we do with the people who will remain uncovered by Wyden-Bennett?

The remaining ~1% or so who would be outside of of coverage? Can you explain why they are outside? Just want to make sure you understand what that gap is.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Speaking of endless loops of posting behaviors. 

We are part of the same hypocrisy. At least mine involves fun jokes, though.

M4A is expanded Medicare.

Does it eliminate some aspects of Medicare that were pushed by private health insurers? Yes, absolutely. It is a dramatically modified and expanded version of Medicare, which is cool and good.

Its rate are set off Medicare. It will be called Medicare. It will be administered through the same organizations that currently exist for Medicare (again, expanded CMS etc...).

Just a small piece...

-----------------------------------------------------
SEC. 501. QUALITY STANDARDS.

(a) In General.—All standards and quality measures under this Act shall be performed by the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (referred to in this title as the “Center”), in coordination with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and other offices of the Department of Health and Human Services.

(b) Duties Of The Center.—The Center shall perform the following duties:

(1) PRACTICE GUIDELINES.—The Center shall review and evaluate each practice guideline developed under part B of title IX of the Public Health Service Act. The Center shall determine whether the guideline should be recognized as a national practice guideline.

(2) STANDARDS OF QUALITY, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND MEDICAL REVIEW CRITERIA.—The Center shall review and evaluate each standard of quality, performance measure, and medical review criterion developed under part B of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.). The Center shall determine whether the standard, measure, or criterion is appropriate for use in assessing or reviewing the quality of services provided by health care institutions or health care professionals. In evaluating such standards, the Center shall consider the evidentiary basis for the standard, and the validity, reliability, and feasibility of measuring the standard.

(3) PROFILING OF PATTERNS OF PRACTICE; IDENTIFICATION OF OUTLIERS.—The Center shall adopt methodologies for profiling the patterns of practice of health care professionals and for identifying and notifying outliers.

(4) CRITERIA FOR ENTITIES CONDUCTING QUALITY REVIEWS.—The Center shall develop minimum criteria for competence for entities that can qualify to conduct ongoing and continuous external quality reviews in the administrative regions. Such criteria shall require such an entity to be administratively independent of the individual or board that administers the region and shall ensure that such entities do not provide financial incentives to reviewers to favor one pattern of practice over another. The Center shall ensure coordination and reporting by such entities to ensure national consistency in quality standards.

(5) REPORTING.—The Center shall report to the Secretary annually specifically on findings from outcomes research and development of practice guidelines that may affect the Secretary’s determination of coverage of services under section 401(a)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------

It's an expanded and reformed version of Medicare. It's Medicare, shill.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The remaining ~1% or so who would be outside of of coverage? Can you explain why they are outside? Just want to make sure you understand what that gap is.

I'm just a simple country doctor, Bozo, perhaps you should do some of the explaining and talking about this plan you think is so wonderful?

The various reports I'm seeing on Wyden-Bennett (a dead piece of legislation promoted by no one, incidentally) all claim it does not achieve 100% coverage. Is this false? Can you elucidate?

[Anastasis 23,699]

I am not sure what quoting me a section about quality measures is suppose to demonstrate. I’ve gone through this in greater detail in one of your prior threads in the subject. Suffice to say at this point that The implementation of M4A, to the extent that the details have even been articulated, does not resemble traditional Medicare in any sense.  

[bad_teammate 13,479]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not sure what quoting me a section about quality measures is suppose to demonstrate.

That the program called "Medicare for All" is administered by the same group that administers Medicare today (CMS). Which makes it dishonest to pretend it's some entirely different system.

It's not. It's Medicare. Different and reformed, but still Medicare.

Quote

I’ve gone through this in greater detail in one of your prior threads in the subject. Suffice to say at this point that The implementation of M4A, to the extent that the details have even been articulated, does not resemble traditional Medicare in any sense.  

It's called "Medicare" and administered by CMS. It's funny that your primary criteria for it being called "Medicare" honestly is that it HAS TO incorporate the right-wing reforms made by corporatists who wanted to kill Medicare.

Funny, because you're a shill.

[Anastasis 23,699]

It is an entirely different system, in terms of administration, financing, cost sharing, etc. What is dishonest is to piggyback on the beneficiary satisfaction associated with the current Medicare system to support a total revamp of the system into something totally different.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

I'm just a simple country doctor, Bozo, perhaps you should do some of the explaining and talking about this plan you think is so wonderful?

The various reports I'm seeing on Wyden-Bennett (a dead piece of legislation promoted by no one, incidentally) all claim it does not achieve 100% coverage. Is this false? Can you elucidate?

I don’t read factional advocacy bullshit so I don’t understand the claim that 99% coverage with the rest in some kind of vestigial form of Medicaid isn’t “universal.”

 

And I wouldn’t call it “dead” either. I mean, yes the HAA is a dead bill and Bennett is dead, but a transition to that kind of system framed as “M4A” since it wild sever the link to employment would be logistically easy to implement. Plus it would be universal in one year, self financed in two and revenue positive in three, so it offers a Democratic President a political hammer to drop on swing state Republicans to get past a filibuster.

2021 will be interesting and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see this kind of proposal on the table as I know it’s actively being discussed now.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,707]

2/3 of hospitals lose money with Medicare patients, and I imagine 100% lose money on Medicaid. Are we ok that many hospitals under M4A will either face closure or lowering care to meet their new cost structure?  The next natural step will be the govt taking over hospitals and their physician networks.  Is that what we want?

[Message Board User 12,405]

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

2/3 of hospitals lose money with Medicare patients, and I imagine 100% lose money on Medicaid. Are we ok that many hospitals under M4A will either face closure or lowering care to meet their new cost structure?  The next natural step will be the govt taking over hospitals and their physician networks.  Is that what we want?

Yes.

/95% of this board

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,707]

3 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Yes.

/95% of this board

Yes. And they all think about costs and services over the next 5 years and not about the following 25-30 years. The potential for profit drives innovation and advancement. It absolutely has gotten out of control in some areas but why not address those symptoms as opposed to destroying the entire system. That still reserves the right to destroy the entire system later on if all other options fail.