Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Tom 2,960]

On 8/4/2018 at 2:17 PM, Iconoclast Texan said:

 

Don’t think that only the evil Republicans are trying to mold the electorate to serve their interests. Leftists wanting to eliminate the electoral college are wanting to neuter the power of flyover country voters. 

 

 

If by "neuter" you mean make their vote count equal to everyone else like in a true democracy, then, yes.  

I love how you define somebody from Wyoming's vote not counting multiple times compared to a New Yorker's vote as "neutering." But at least you don't deny or hide the fact that you're an anti-democratic asshat.  At least you have that going for you.

[Js1 87,338]

Well you are talking to Ayatollah TailoredJersey

[Buzzrock 15,187]

I wish conservatives comprehended this.

Most do. It’s Econ 101. The devil is in the details of the regulation.

[Buzzrock 15,187]

 
If by "neuter" you mean make their vote count equal to everyone else like in a true democracy, then, yes.  
I love how you define somebody from Wyoming's vote not counting multiple times compared to a New Yorker's vote as "neutering." But at least you don't deny or hide the fact that you're an anti-democratic asshat.  At least you have that going for you.

A “true democracy” can have some pretty bad consequences. Which is why we are a representative republic instead.

[thrillhammer 686]

9 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Most do. It’s Econ 101. The devil is in the details of the regulation.

 

I wish conservatives comprehended Econ 101.

[this 107]

10 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

I wish conservatives comprehended Econ 101.

Add math to the wish list for socialists. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

I wish conservatives comprehended this.

I wish liberals could do maths.

Edited August 7, 2018 by slorch

[ChickenSandwich 10,000]

2 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

You've owned it on this board, so it's not like we are telling tales out of school here. You want free stuff because you feel entitled to it and because you don't have a lot. Those are your (distilled) words; not mine.

The truth is, honestly, if I were you, I'd feel the same way and want the same thing. 

So, tend bar then run for Democratic office?

[ChickenSandwich 10,000]

Wasn’t talking about her

[Rimbo 27,123]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep judicious parts of both are needed to function.

And you really have to look deeper than a superficial understanding to know when it's appropriate to provide something as a social service and when it's appropriate to leave things to private enterprise.

One obvious example where the USA differs from the rest of the world: The USA has been very successful, for example, in not socializing airlines and airplane production. Four of the top five airlines in the world are US-based carriers. Profit motive has led to expansion and reasonably low ticket prices. And Boeing is by far the finest passenger airplane manufacturer. The EU had to form a coalition to produce anything to compete with what Boeing does as a private company. In short, leaving the industry in private hands has been very good for the USA, and in certain aspects of it that ARE run by the government -- e.g. the TSA -- you find some genuinely horrifying things that make you think, "That whole agency should be abolished."

One American exception going the other way -- it's getting more and more difficult to argue with a straight face that health insurance should remain privatized. The only way health insurance companies make money is by not providing healthcare services to their insured, so the profit motive provides a perverse incentive that leads to less-healthy Americans, which is huge a National Security risk. It also costs more: Americans pay more in health insurance premiums than we would in taxes to provide the same levels of health care under a single-payer system, and they receive a worse level of service. The government provides better economies of scale than any private company would, it is -- as long as our democracy lasts -- answerable to the public, and there is no incentive for the government to refuse to provide healthcare services so that they can meet their quarterly earnings estimates.

So, here's two things I believe, one of them is extremely pro-capitalism, one is extremely pro-socialism, but based on a principle of "what is best for America" rather than "what does my tribe require," because as a Longhorn, all that's required of me is to know things like the words to "The Eyes of Texas", to wear burnt orange and believe it to be the most beautiful color in the world, and to wonder what the fuck is wrong with those weirdos over in College Station.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Rimbo

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[this 107]

On 8/2/2018 at 6:54 PM, David Dennison said:

Super liberal website reporting on the Koch study about Medicare for all.

 

On 8/2/2018 at 7:07 PM, FondrenRoad said:

No man. We cant afford to spend 100 billion less per year than we do now. Let's just ignore that, take the estimated cost without comparison to today's cost and multiply it by 10 so the number looks really big. Nobody will ever do the same with current numbers and catch us in the act. 

It works with everything. Over the next 1000 years, Americans will spend 80 trillion dollars on bananas. We just cant afford bananas for everyone right now. 

Here's Wapo's take on your ridiculously stupid analysis of the study that(obviously) neither one of you or any of your dumb socialist leaders read but loved pointing out:

Quote

“We know that Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all actually save this state and this nation $2 trillion if it were fully implemented.”
— Andrew Gillum, Democratic candidate for Florida governor, in a primary debate, Aug. 2, 2018

This fact check has been updated

As our colleague David Weigel reported, Democrats have latched onto the catchy idea of “Medicare-for-all” (also known as M4A) as a way of expressing their support for universal health care.

On July 30, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University released a working paper on the 10-year fiscal impact of the Medicare-for-all plan sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which would transition everyone in the United States from a mostly employer-provided health system to Medicare over four years. The report was written by Charles Blahous, a former economic adviser to George W. Bush and a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 2010 through 2015.

Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, was quoted in Weigel’s article as having touted, during a debate, a $2 trillion cost-savings figure that is in the report. Sanders, too, has tweeted about this $2 trillion number, sarcastically thanking the conservative Koch brothers, whose foundation has contributed to Mercatus. “Let me thank the Koch brothers of all people for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period,” Sanders says in a video with the tweet.

 

Bernie Sanders

 

✔@SenSanders

 

 

Thank you, Koch brothers, for accidentally making the case for Medicare for All!

6:30 PM - Jul 30, 2018

•  
  20K
•  
  8,392 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

But Blahous is crying foul, saying Medicare-for-all proponents are misrepresenting his findings. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

We often warn readers that you can’t get something for nothing. In the health-care realm, even relatively small shifts can lead to major dislocation and changes; President Barack Obama discovered that, to his chagrin. As former Lyndon Johnson White House aide Joseph A. Califano Jr. once noted, congressional dealmaking during the passage of Medicaid unexpectedly led to one-third of the Medicaid budget going to nursing homes — an industry that was literally built on Medicaid funding.

In doing his research, Blahous decided to follow the text of the Sanders plan and assume that providers — doctors, hospitals, and the like — would face an immediate cut of roughly 40 percent for the treatment of patients now covered by private insurance. (Note: an earlier version of this fact check incorrectly included a reference to drug companies in the sentence above. The analysis found that drug costs would be $846 billion lower over ten years from an aggressive program to negotiate lower prescription drug prices but it would not be as much as a 40 percent decline.)

That in theory would reduce the country’s overall level of health expenditures by $2 trillion from 2022 to 2031. But he makes clear that it’s a pretty unrealistic assumption.

In the fourth sentence of the report’s abstract, Blahous wrote, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Under an alternative scenario, which assumes these cuts cannot be achieved, national health spending rises even faster than under current law because health-care demand would increase.

“To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number, one would have to argue that we can cut payments to providers by about 40 percent at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent,” Blahous said.

The main point of his study is being ignored by Democrats — that even by generously accepting Sanders’s assumptions that he could squeeze providers so much, the plan would still raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion. This is in line with a 2016 estimate by the left-leaning Urban Institute of an earlier version of the M4A plan — that it would cause federal expenditures to increase by $32 trillion. (Without the provider cuts, Blahaus estimated  the additional federal budget cost at nearly $40 trillion over 10 years.)

Sanders has said his plan would cost $1.38 trillion a year, paid for in part with new taxes on employers and an income-based premium, but under Blahaus’s analysis it would be closer to $3.3 trillion.

“For perspective on these figures, consider that doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan,” Blahous wrote. (He’s referring only to income tax collection, not existing Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.)

Blahous told the Fact Checker: “Every table in the study (Tables 1-5) is very explicit that the additional costs arising from higher demand are substantially higher than the potential administrative efficiencies of going to a centralized national health insurance system. So whenever proponents argue that eliminating private sector insurance profits and overhead would enable us to cover more people for less money, that conflicts with the findings of the study.”

Congress has passed cuts to health-care providers that do not come to fruition. More famously, the 1997 balanced-budget agreement between President Bill Clinton and the GOP-led Congress included cuts that Congress deferred for 17 years with an annual provision known as the “doc fix.” It was finally eliminated under a deal Obama reached with Congress in 2015, or else providers would have faced a cut of 21 percent. Other efforts to control spending in Medicare, however, have fared better, including as part of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.

In 2012, Blahous wrote a study questioning the budget assumptions in the Affordable Care Act, such as the political prospects for a tax on “Cadillac” health plans. He turned out to be right: The tax keeps getting pushed off and weakened. Health-care costs did decline after the passage of the ACA, but whether that pre-dated the law or not is a subject of continuing debate.

For the record, Blahous says the Kochs had nothing to do with his research. “It’s academic research, it goes through a blind review process, and it represents my own work,” he said. “I choose my own research subjects and follow the facts where they lead. You’d have to ask someone else about where funding comes from, I don’t follow that and it doesn’t affect me.”

We shared Blahous’s concerns with Gillum’s campaign, which confirmed that he relied on the Mercatus study, and received this response: “The Mayor’s a proud supporter of Medicare-for-All and this study shows the potential for significant savings,” said communications director Geoff Burgan. “It would be a strong improvement over the Republicans’ attempts to destroy our current system and rip health care away from people.”

In response to this fact check, Sanders’s office provided links to several articles, including in The Washington Post, that reported that Blahous concluded that the Sanders plan would reduce national health expenditures by $2 trillion. Blahous said these articles are good examples of the misinterpretation of his research: “It’s precisely because people have been saying that, that the correction is warranted.”

The Pinocchio Test

We don’t intend to pick on Gillum, who appears to have picked up a talking point that is circulating among Democrats. But we do want to lay down a marker because this goes too far.

All too often, politicians mischaracterize conclusions that are contained in academic or think tank studies. At the Fact Checker, we rely heavily on how a study’s author says the data should be presented. In this case, it’s clear that Blahous bent over backward  to accept Sanders’s assumptions, only to find they did not add up. Democrats cannot seize on one cherry-picked fact without acknowledging the broader implications of Blahous’s research.

Three Pinocchios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e72e3a4c5e46

 

lulz......your leaders are just as prone to lying as the idiot in chief. You're in great company.

Edited August 7, 2018 by this

[Incredulity 11,888]

Call me when she is two terms in and has a voting record to answer for.  If she trancends that then she will be a force to be reckoned with.

[The Royal We 3,102]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 Americans pay more in health insurance premiums than we would in taxes to provide the same levels of health care

I agree with your post and would really like for this to be true, but I don't see how it's possible.  Where did you get this from?

[Rimbo 27,123]

10 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I agree with your post and would really like for this to be true, but I don't see how it's possible.  Where did you get this from?

Studies that compare how much Americans pay for healthcare vs. how much people in single-payer systems pay. Here's some OECD data for just one data point. See how much we pay, vs. how much the UK or Canada pays.

My family's health insurance, for example, is about $1600/month, not including co-pays, deductibles, etc. Once you include those, I'm spending about $23k/yr on healthcare. So my taxes could go up by $20,000 per year, and I would have more money in my pocket than I do under the current system -- three thousand dollars more.

It's just simple math, y'all. Can you add and subtract?

[Incredulity 11,888]

16 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I agree with your post and would really like for this to be true, but I don't see how it's possible.  Where did you get this from?

I believe it is based on the study that Bernie and others have been flogging referenceed a couple posts up

[Incredulity 11,888]

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Studies that compare how much Americans pay for healthcare vs. how much people in single-payer systems pay. Here's some OECD data for just one data point. See how much we pay, vs. how much the UK or Canada pays.

My family's health insurance, for example, is about $1600/month, not including co-pays, deductibles, etc. Once you include those, I'm spending about $23k/yr on healthcare. So my taxes could go up by $20,000 per year, and I would have more money in my pocket than I do under the current system -- three thousand dollars more.

It's just simple math, y'all. Can you add and subtract?

I assume your 1600 is a employer program.  So those are pretax dollars.

[Rimbo 27,123]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I assume your 1600 is a employer program.  So those are pretax dollars.

It's still guaranteed money in my pocket if my taxes go up by less than $23k. Which means more money to buy burnt orange clothes and tickets to watch Texas beat the shit out of OU. (Let us not forget the ultimate goal here.)

Edited August 7, 2018 by Rimbo

[Incredulity 11,888]

9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

It's still guaranteed money in my pocket if my taxes go up by less than $23k. Which means more money to buy burnt orange clothes and tickets to watch Texas beat the shit out of OU. (Let us not forget the ultimate goal here.)

The first 19k is subsided at your effective tax rate.  You didn’t ever have that money.  

[bad_teammate 13,569]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Imagine being a lib or Dem and not loving this woman.

[Rimbo 27,123]

23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You didn’t ever have that money.  

This is complete nonsense. It sometimes amazes me that people are able to successfully operate a computer, type complete sentences, and yet express things that suggest invertebrate levels of intelligence. 

The only reason I don't have that money is because I bought the insurance. If I opt out of it during my sign-up period or during open enrollment, then I absolutely have that money. And it doesn't matter if the funds are pre-tax or post-tax if the difference in what I take home is positive. More to the point, it's clear from every other country that's implemented such that the total costs won't merely be a few percentage points, but roughly half of what I'm paying now.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Imagine being a lib or Dem and not loving this woman.

It’s remarkable how afraid the right is of this trail blazer.  They be like, “Oh shit, she actually cares for these people and can’t be bought off. We have got to put a stop to this shit immediately.”

 

[Incredulity 11,888]

51 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

This is complete nonsense. It sometimes amazes me that people are able to successfully operate a computer, type complete sentences, and yet express things that suggest invertebrate levels of intelligence. 

The only reason I don't have that money is because I bought the insurance. If I opt out of it during my sign-up period or during open enrollment, then I absolutely have that money. And it doesn't matter if the funds are pre-tax or post-tax if the difference in what I take home is positive. More to the point, it's clear from every other country that's implemented such that the total costs won't merely be a few percentage points, but roughly half of what I'm paying now.

It sure as fuck does matter if the money is pre or post-tax if the point of discussion is “money in your pocket”.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

10 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Lol can’t be bought off. She hasn’t even entered the mouth of the beast yet. Give her time, she’ll cave to pragmatism and compromise soon enough. They all do mwahahaha 

Well yeah but until that time, she is a danger to the 1% and will be vilified accordingly 

[bad_teammate 13,569]

Odds are very low she'll be "bought off" in any meaningful way. It's neither in her best interest or in those who buy off politicians. Bernie Sanders is 800 years old and is not bought off.

[bad_teammate 13,569]

19 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

The point I’ve continually made is that if you have shit insurance where you pay $1600 a month, then that’s on you. Find a better employer or strike out on your own.

lol it's that easy!

*makes jerking off motion until arm literally falls off*

[bad_teammate 13,569]

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I allowed that perhaps it's my experience/privilege speaking here, and I'm assuming the same thing from the guy who whinged about paying for crappy healthcare, but it's not hard to sell out and work for a soulless corporation if you want to.

hell yeah just sell your labor at exploitative rates to get a better position in the exploitative system

Quote

Be employee #76,701 and do your Office Space thang. You are sacrificing a ton, but in the end you are providing quality insurance to your family at a price that still affords you an annual vacation or two.

It's like putting on the sunglasses in They Live and saying, "Hell yeah, this is actually cool."

[bad_teammate 13,569]

11 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't understand your quirky cultural references and if I had to hazard a guess it's probably why I don't understand your...unique...worldview.

 

[bad_teammate 13,569]

ORC, I'm sayin' ur a class traitor lol

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

19 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't understand your quirky cultural references and if I had to hazard a guess it's probably why I don't understand your...unique...worldview.

nothing quirky about They Live

[Incredulity 11,888]

17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

lol sorry comrade!

Technically,  he is comrade colonel.

Got in on the ground floor so he is more equal than the rest of the proletariat.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Technically,  he is comrade colonel.

Got in on the ground floor so he is more equal than the rest of the proletariat.

Well somebody has to be in charge.........and well he just loves authoritarian socialism so much....

[RDCanecutter 26,983]

26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well somebody has to be in charge.........and well he just loves authoritarian socialism so much....

But he pays us with good silver 1923D Dimes.

[bad_teammate 13,569]

43 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

nothing quirky about They Live

 

[maninblack 7,975]

Odds are very low she'll be "bought off" in any meaningful way. It's neither in her best interest or in those who buy off politicians. Bernie Sanders is 800 years old and is not bought off.

She quickly removed the foreign policy section of her website condemning the illegal wars of the US government as the election approached. Still hasn't reappeared. Someone got to her.

[Anastasis 23,724]

8 minutes ago, maninblack said:

She quickly removed the foreign policy section of her website condemning the illegal wars of the US government as the election approached. Still hasn't reappeared. Someone got to her.

tweet or it didnt happen. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

10 minutes ago, maninblack said:

She quickly removed the foreign policy section of her website condemning the illegal wars of the US government as the election approached. Still hasn't reappeared. Someone got to her.

Her focus group and or private polling company......

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[maninblack 7,975]

Obviously a student of history.

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, maninblack said:

She quickly removed the foreign policy section of her website condemning the illegal wars of the US government as the election approached. Still hasn't reappeared. Someone got to her.

she also backed away from her pro Palestinian stance after being overwhelmed by Israeli "activists" behind closed door meetings after her victory.  I'll show the details of that on the Israel thread later.  Tough to be anti Israel in NYC

Edited August 8, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[bad_teammate 13,569]

9 hours ago, maninblack said:

She quickly removed the foreign policy section of her website condemning the illegal wars of the US government as the election approached. Still hasn't reappeared. Someone got to her.

That's all based on Israel/Palestine stuff, which is a huge minefield for Democrats. That's not about being bought off by monied interests, but responding to pressure from political allies.

Unless you're arguing that the Jews are paymasters manipulating the system with their wealth, in which case... yikes

[Incredulity 11,888]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

That's all based on Israel/Palestine stuff, which is a huge minefield for Democrats. That's not about being bought off by monied interests, but responding to pressure from political allies.

Unless you're arguing that the Jews are paymasters manipulating the system with their wealth, in which case... yikes

Got it, she’s not a Communist . She’s a Marxist Leninist.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Incredulity

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

She's neither.  She's a Democratic Socialist.  

[thrillhammer 686]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will never be President?

[Js1 87,338]

Her preferred candidate for Michigan governor and Kansas rep. didn't win.  I guess conservative twitter will have to call off the revolution.

[zork 629]

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Her preferred candidate for Michigan governor and Kansas rep. didn't win.  I guess conservative twitter will have to call off the revolution.

4th out of 5 in Michigan.  ouch.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Her preferred candidate for Michigan governor and Kansas rep. didn't win.  I guess conservative twitter will have to call off the revolution.

You’d think a bartender from the Bronx could have more political influence in Michigan.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’d think a bartender from the Bronx could have more political influence in Michigan.

Or  Russian operative.....

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, zork said:

4th out of 5 in Michigan.  ouch.

was it El-Sayed? He finished 2nd.