Buttigieg 2020

[BradInATX 9208]

At risk of starting an actual policy discussion (and I'll try to keep it there), can we talk about something Pete mentioned last night regarding the difference between a public option and M4A?

For those who support going straight to full M4A, what's your response to the way mayor Pete walked it out last night? Essentially he said "Let's do it incrementally. Let's first introduce a public option and make sure that every American is covered. Then let's allow it to compete in the marketplace on the exchanges right alongside all of the private options. And if/when it proves to be the best option, it will naturally take over as people switch to it".

I fail to see any downside to what he said. If M4A is the answer, let it prove itself in open competition with private plans. If it's better, people will move to it. Meantime, your public option makes sure that everyone is covered, which is the goal, right?

Isn't competition the American way? Are we scared of forcing M4A to compete with other plans? Why?

[David Dennison 19440]

On 6/26/2019 at 2:56 PM, RomaVicta said:

My favorite example:

I didn't know if I wanted to vote for Dean, but having this moment disqualify is another point in time where my doubts about the electorate and the dull-minded media grew. At worst, this just should have become an amusing footnote. Maybe a goofy footnote.

Idiot World.

 

[henrygandorf 29218]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

At risk of starting an actual policy discussion (and I'll try to keep it there), can we talk about something Pete mentioned last night regarding the difference between a public option and M4A?

For those who support going straight to full M4A, what's your response to the way mayor Pete walked it out last night? Essentially he said "Let's do it incrementally. Let's first introduce a public option and make sure that every American is covered. Then let's allow it to compete in the marketplace on the exchanges right alongside all of the private options. And if/when it proves to be the best option, it will naturally take over as people switch to it".

I fail to see any downside to what he said. If M4A is the answer, let it prove itself in open competition with private plans. If it's better, people will move to it. Meantime, your public option makes sure that everyone is covered, which is the goal, right?

Isn't competition the American way? Are we scared of forcing M4A to compete with other plans? Why?

he’s always been for “medicare for all...who want it” and it’s always seemed like the most realistic to me, as far as something that could successfully be passed into law. 

there’s just such an obvious counter to m4a for the millions happy with their current situation thru their companies. 

[David Dennison 19440]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

he’s always been for “medicare for all...who want it” and it’s always seemed like the most realistic to me, as far as something that could successfully be passed into law. 

there’s just such an obvious counter to m4a for the millions happy with their current situation thru their companies. 

Millions of people are moved off of their company's plans to Medicare every year with no problem. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

"Why can't we just do Republican things?" asks the Republican.

There is no competition in the healthcare market. You do not have choices, you are not in the market. Your employer gives you a small handful of choices.

You cannot go out into the market as an individual and compete against the buying power of Amazon or Wal-Mart who are bulk-purchasing coverage.

There is no free market for healthcare, so there can be no actual competition. There is only the illusion of competition designed to get more money for fewer services, which has led to our current system where we pay the most and get far less per capita.

The only way to have an actual free market for healthcare with actual competition would be to 100% deregulate it and remove the government from it entirely. That, of course, would mean that those who couldn't afford it would just die en masse of preventable and cureable illness and would go back to 19th century home remedies.

This is a larger lesson for the Republicans here to learn: The free market cannot work for necessary goods and services.

It works for underwear and coathangers; things people can technically do without and still live. Competition works for Internet streaming video. But we CANNOT have real competition for life-necessary goods and services because we MUST make sure even the poorest get them, which means government intervention, which means an unfree market.

[henrygandorf 29218]

i didn’t say it was a devastating argument. but there’s a reason why m4a isn’t just a total “no-brainer” for everyone. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i didn’t say it was a devastating argument. but there’s a reason why m4a isn’t just a total “no-brainer” for everyone. 

Yes, they believe things like "competition" and "free market" are real things and not just fantasies sold to them by corporations and the politicians owned by those corporations.

[horncyclist 1391]

On 6/26/2019 at 3:56 PM, RomaVicta said:

My favorite example:

I didn't know if I wanted to vote for Dean, but having this moment disqualify is another point in time where my doubts about the electorate and the dull-minded media grew. At worst, this just should have become an amusing footnote. Maybe a goofy footnote.

Idiot World.

 

Not this changes your point much but Howard Dean was already on a downward spiral when the scream happened. He happened after he lost Iowa, falling below expectations.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dean-scream-what-really-happened/

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

What is the difference between Pete’s plan and England’s system?

[bad_teammate 13479]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

What is the difference between Pete’s plan and England’s system?

The NHS in England is 100% government-run. The hospitals are owned by the government and the doctors are paid by the government. It is a nationalized system.

You can get private supplemental, but everyone gets NHS coverage regardless.

Pete's plan maintains privately-owned hospitals and privately-funded doctors. The further details of how an employee "chooses" Medicare instead of his company-mandated "choices" is not fleshed out because... it's Pete and he doesn't bother with stuff like that.

Edited June 28, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29218]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, they believe things like "competition" and "free market" are real things and not just fantasies sold to them by corporations and the politicians owned by those corporations.

yeah sorry my response was to david. should’ve quoted but got lazy. 

i think what you typed is accurate, i just think pete is aiming for baby steps because he thinks it’s more realistic. 

they’re pulling in the same direction. 

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

"Why can't we just do Republican things?" asks the Republican.

There is no competition in the healthcare market. You do not have choices, you are not in the market. Your employer gives you a small handful of choices.

You cannot go out into the market as an individual and compete against the buying power of Amazon or Wal-Mart who are bulk-purchasing coverage.

There is no free market for healthcare, so there can be no actual competition. There is only the illusion of competition designed to get more money for fewer services, which has led to our current system where we pay the most and get far less per capita.

The only way to have an actual free market for healthcare with actual competition would be to 100% deregulate it and remove the government from it entirely. That, of course, would mean that those who couldn't afford it would just die en masse of preventable and cureable illness and would go back to 19th century home remedies.

This is a larger lesson for the Republicans here to learn: The free market cannot work for necessary goods and services.

It works for underwear and coathangers; things people can technically do without and still live. Competition works for Internet streaming video. But we CANNOT have real competition for life-necessary goods and services because we MUST make sure even the poorest get them, which means government intervention, which means an unfree market.

 

Nobody is advocating for an unregulated healthcare system. Your entire post is nothing but platitudes. Let's try this again.

 

Why are you scared of putting a public option on an even playing field (same regulations, etc.) with private options and letting it compete?

 

[F250 29171]

Does anyone have a working theory as to why Buttigieg seems to only draw supporters from the pool of Wes Anderson fans?

I don't think the police situation in South Bend is the reason. I've read about him being gay might turn off some minority groups but that doesn't really explain the complete lack of minority support.

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Yes, they believe things like "competition" and "free market" are real things and not just fantasies sold to them by corporations and the politicians owned by those corporations.

And this is just way out there. Our entire country is built on competition. It's why we've been the global leader for innovation for close to a century. You really seem to have fundamental disagreements with the bedrock of the country you live in.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

Does anyone have a working theory as to why Buttigieg seems to only draw supporters from the pool of Wes Anderson fans?

I don't think the police situation in South Bend is the reason. I've read about him being gay might turn off some minority groups but that doesn't really explain the complete lack of minority support.

I don't know but I'd speculate it's because Pete gives off the embodiment of white privilege.  Not saying that's fair or accurate but I imagine there's some resentment about a Doogie Howser candidate that's been better educated and socially adjusted without having to overcome the institutional obstacles of a black kid. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[RomaVicta 30500]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Not this changes your point much but Howard Dean was already on a downward spiral when the scream happened. He happened after he lost Iowa, falling below expectations.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dean-scream-what-really-happened/

 

I recall that the speech was in reaction to the disappointing showing in Iowa. Thanks for recognizing it doesn't change the point about the scream causing such a big reaction and continuing to do so over the course of years. It eclipsed anything substantial about him that might sway a thoughtful person either way.

[RomaVicta 30500]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don't know but I'd speculate it's because Pete gives off the embodiment of white privilege.  Not saying that's fair or accurate but I imagine there's some resentment about a Doogie Howser candidate that's been better educated and socially adjusted without having to overcome the institutional obstacles of a black kid. 

What white candidate wouldn't that apply to?

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don't know but I'd speculate it's because Pete gives off the embodiment of white privilege.  Not saying that's fair or accurate but I imagine there's some resentment about a Doogie Howser candidate that's been better educated and socially adjusted without having to overcome the institutional obstacles of a black kid. 

So, same as all the white candidates?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

What white candidate wouldn't that apply to?

It’s not just race.  It’s race combined with his youth.  There’s no way someone like Pete would make it on that debate stage if he was black.  

A 37 year old black mayor from a mildly populated city would likely never gain any traction in a presidential race, it’s remarkable Pete did.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

39 minutes ago, F250 said:

Does anyone have a working theory as to why Buttigieg seems to only draw supporters from the pool of Wes Anderson fans?

I don't think the police situation in South Bend is the reason. I've read about him being gay might turn off some minority groups but that doesn't really explain the complete lack of minority support.

 

 

Pre-SB shooting, I think one of the reasons Pete had a "black voter problem" is because 3 months ago he had a COMPLETE voter problem. 98% of people didn't know who he was prior to his CNN Town Hall in March. 

College educated whites tend to pay more attention to politics this early, hence the rising poll numbers over the last 3 months. He went from 0% in SC with black voters to 6% within one poll cycle.

Obviously the SB shooting has changed everything. I think owning up to the situation has bought him some time. He'll have really strong Q2 fundraising numbers and will be in this race for a long time if he doesn't have another major problem that pops up.  The question will be can he connect with POC over the next 5-6 months. 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46060]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s not just race.  It’s race combined with his youth.  There’s no way someone like Pete would make it on that debate stage if he was black.  

A 37 year old black mayor from a mildly populated city would likely never gain any traction in a presidential race, it’s remarkable Pete did.

If a 37 year old black mayor said the things Pete said, I think he would.  I have yet to hear Pete say something wrong and I think it's kinda bullshit that he's getting shit on for essentially no reason. 

[BradInATX 9208]

If a 37 year old black mayor said the things Pete said, I think he would.  I have yet to hear Pete say something wrong and I think it's kinda bullshit that he's getting shit on for essentially no reason. 

He's a threat.

Though Hugo's points have some merit as well

[bad_teammate 13479]

50 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Nobody is advocating for an unregulated healthcare system.

If you advocate for a regulated system you are arguing against a free market and competition.

There is no fair competition in a system where the government is a provider.

Quote

Why are you scared of putting a public option on an even playing field (same regulations, etc.) with private options and letting it compete?

How would a government option and private options be "an even playing field"? The government plan cannot fail because it will be eternally propped up by taxpayers whereas the private options have to not only break even but turn a profit. There is no way for that to be an actual competition.

46 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

And this is just way out there. Our entire country is built on competition. It's why we've been the global leader for innovation for close to a century. You really seem to have fundamental disagreements with the bedrock of the country you live in.

Weren't you just saying something about "platitudes", Republican? 

[bad_teammate 13479]

White men: "Being white is actually a handicap, if you think about it."

hahaaa fuck

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If a 37 year old black mayor said the things Pete said, I think he would.  I have yet to hear Pete say something wrong and I think it's kinda bullshit that he's getting shit on for essentially no reason. 

It’s not necessarily about what he says.  It’s about how he was gifted the platforms for people to listen.  Would we hear all of Pete’s ideas if he was black? I don’t know. 

[BradInATX 9208]

I'm fine with the government subsidizing it's own plan. So you're saying the government plan would have built in advantages. So let's try again for a third time.

Why are you against letting a government plan compete in open market against private plans, in a situation where the government plan has cost advantages due to subsidies?

[Biff Tannen 46060]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s not necessarily about what he says.  It’s about how he was gifted the platforms for people to listen.  Would we hear all of Pete’s ideas if he was black? I don’t know. 

I'll give you that, but the fact is we ARE hearing his ideas and he's possibly the smartest person on that stage.  Whatever, I can't make people like him.  I just hope he's around for a long time because he can be very good for this country, if we survive.

[bad_teammate 13479]

Of course a black Pete wouldn't get the same attention as a white Pete! This is America! Holy shit.

A clear example is Cory Booker, a fellow Ivy League Rhodes Scholar mayor, whose record as a mayor is far more impressive than Buttigieg's. He had to become a Senator to get taken seriously at this level of politics (like Obama did) and where is he in this race?

Just now, BradInATX said:

Why are you against letting a government plan compete in open market against private plans, in a situation where the government plan has cost advantages due to subsidies?

Because it's a pointless waste of billions and billions of dollars and it wouldn't be an open market. There is no open market for healthcare and no one is proposing that one be created.

You are just using words like "open market" without know what they mean.

[Js1 86927]

Wayne Messam is a 45 year old black mayor of a city larger than South Bend in a swing state.  

And now everyone is going to Google "Wayne Messam" because they had no idea he is running for President. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

If Pete wants to be more appealing to black voters, he needs to take a more hardline stance against the racists that Trump has brought out and he needs to mean it.  

Something like Ronald Reagan circa 1981:

 

Pete cant keep pretending that Trump was all economic anxiety and voters that just wanted to burn the house down.  He needs to acknowledge the racism Trump brought with him, call it out, and forcefully condemn it publicly.

[BradInATX 9208]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because it's a pointless waste of billions and billions of dollars and it wouldn't be an open market. There is no open market for healthcare and no one is proposing that one be created.

You are just using words like "open market" without know what they mean.

Why/how do you figure it would be a pointless waste of billions and billions of dollars?

Pete literally proposed last night that you allow the government plans to compete on the exchanges right alongside the private plans. Not sure how that's not an "open market". I understand that you're playing word games because you don't have any real response. Everyone understands that regulations make healthcare not 100% a "free market". You aren't impressing anyone.

So let me re-phrase and see if you'll answer on a 4th attempt (narrator: he won't).

Why are you against letting a subsidized government plan compete, on the exchanges (a quasi-open market), against existing employer plans and other private plans?

Edited June 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[Biff Tannen 46060]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If Pete wants to be more appealing to black voters, he needs to take a more hardline stance against the racists that Trump has brought out and he needs to mean it.  

Something like Ronald Reagan circa 1981:

 

Pete cant keep pretending that Trump was all economic anxiety and voters that just wanted to burn the house down.  He needs to acknowledge the racism Trump brought with him, call it out, and forcefully condemn it publicly.

@Ozzman

[bad_teammate 13479]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Why/how do you figure it would be a pointless waste of billions and billions of dollars?

Because that's what private insurance companies do, as evidence by the costs of our current system.

Quote

Why are you against letting a subsidized government plan compete, on the exchanges (a quasi-open market), against existing employer plans and other private plans?

Because it's a waste of billions and billions of dollars.

You can dislike the answer, but that doesn't change the answer.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because that's what private insurance companies do, as evidence by the costs of our current system.

Because it's a waste of billions and billions of dollars.

You can dislike the answer, but that doesn't change the answer.

 

 

So you believe the government would be more efficient. 

Wouldn't that lead to a more cost-efficient plan?

Which would lead to more people using it, and ultimately a probably fairly rapid phasing out of the less efficient and more expensive private plans?

 

You know you're making my point for me, right? And for Pete.

Edited June 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[Fozzz 152]

A public option would be a little better than the current system but it would do nothing to address the underlying systemic issues.  For instance:

Quote

Finally, in terms of global costs, the public option’s effect would again be quite minor, as single-payer advocates have long noted. Eliminating both uninsurance and underinsurance would cost money, and reduced administrative spending ($503 billion dollars a year, according to one estimate) and reduced drug costs ($113.2 billion a year) are typically cited as key sources of savings. But although a Medicare-like public option may have lower administrative costs, only a small fraction of the efficiency savings of single-payer would be achieved if the multi-payer framework persisted (and drug prices wouldn’t be controlled on a system-wide level).

Or as Physician for a National Health Program’s Don McCanne puts it, the “public option would be only one more player in our wasteful, administratively-complex, fragmented system of financing care.” The upshot? It wouldn’t generate anywhere near the savings needed to fund a truly universal expansion of health care.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/trumpcare-obamacare-repeal-public-option-single-payer

[bad_teammate 13479]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

So you believe the government would be more efficient. 

Wouldn't that lead to a more cost-efficient plan?

Which would lead to more people using it, and ultimately a probably fairly rapid phasing out of the less efficient and more expensive private plans?

Yes, that would absolutely happen. Which is why there's no point in doing it, because all it would do is waste billions and billions of dollars.

Pete's plan is just corporate interests saying, "Please let us wring a few hundred more billion out of the American people before you turn off the spigot!"

And you think that's good, because you're a fucking Republican.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, that would absolutely happen. Which is why there's no point in doing it, because all it would do is waste billions and billions of dollars.

Pete's plan is just corporate interests saying, "Please let us wring a few hundred more billion out of the American people before you turn off the spigot!"

And you think that's good, because you're a fucking Republican.

So given the following two scenarios - let's just run with the assumption that government healthcare would be more cost efficient than private (LO fucking L):

a) Joe sixpack has the option between a $3,000/year Medicare insurance program, or his existing coverage through his employer that costs him $5,000/year

b) Joe sixpack has the option of a $3,000/year Medicare insurance program

 

You would prefer every person in the country to be forced into B?

Edited June 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bama Chick 28596]

Wayne Messam is a 45 year old black mayor of a city larger than South Bend in a swing state.  
And now everyone is going to Google "Wayne Messam" because they had no idea he is running for President. 

Jesus thank you.

The fact that there is actually a Black Pete running for President and none of you know who he is proves the point exactly.

[bad_teammate 13479]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

So given the following two scenarios - let's just run with the assumption that government healthcare would be more cost efficient than private (LO fucking L):

Government health insurance is more efficient than private health insurance. It's not even arguable.

You're a Republican.

Quote

a) Joe sixpack has the option between a $3,000/year Medicare insurance program, or his existing coverage through his employer that costs him $5,000/year

b) Joe sixpack has the option of a $3,000/year Medicare insurance program

You would prefer every person in the country to be forced into B?

In that stupid scenario that you just made up that has no correlation to reality, yes, B is better. Obviously it's better, because Joe Sixpack isn't going to be ripped off $2k/year by the health insurance industry.

What the fuck is wrong with your brain? (You're Republican, that's what.)

[henrygandorf 29218]

1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

Jesus thank you.

The fact that there is actually a Black Pete running for President and none of you know who he is proves the point exactly.

 

so now we have pete, a black pete, and a latino pete (beto)?

[bad_teammate 13479]

 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

 

Jesus thank you.

The fact that there is actually a Black Pete running for President and none of you know who he is proves the point exactly.

 

How many languages does Wayne Messam speak though?  Did he attend an ivy league school or some shitty state school?  These things are critical.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Government health insurance is more efficient than private health insurance. It's not even arguable.

You're a Republican.

In that stupid scenario that you just made up that has no correlation to reality, yes, B is better. Obviously it's better, because Joe Sixpack isn't going to be ripped off $2k/year by the health insurance industry.

What the fuck is wrong with your brain? (You're Republican, that's what.)

That scenario is exactly how the two options (Pete's plan vs. M4A) would look - the numbers might be different, but those scenarios are essentially public option vs. M4A in a nutshell.

What if Joe Sixpack likes his plan better than M4A? 

You want to force people into choices that you believe are better for them, vs. letting them make decisions on their own?

You're a communist/nanny stater.

[Fozzz 152]

Wonderful thing about our current system and the public option is that in both cases tens of millions of Americans will have the freedom of not having any heath insurance at all.  

[BradInATX 9208]

Also, I'd outline why that article you posted about Medicare being more efficient is stupid and a terrible apples to chainsaws comparison, but I'm 100% sure you won't address the facts in a serious manner, so I'll pass. It's out there if you actually care about facts, though.

Edited June 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13479]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Also, I'd outline why that article you posted about Medicare being more efficient is stupid and a terrible apples to chainsaws comparison, but I'm 100% sure you won't address the facts in a serious manner, so I'll pass. It's out there if you actually care about facts, though.

hahaha you're such a fucking crybaby

(Who starts "Policy" threads here with links and citations, my Republican friend? It ain't you.)

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

hahaha you're such a fucking crybaby

(Who starts "Policy" threads here with links and citations, my Republican friend? It ain't you.)

Every "citation" you post is absolute garbage. If you spend even 5 minutes fact checking that link you just posted, you'd know it's complete trash. But you are an empty-headed intellectually dishonest elderly man-child. So of course you're not going to do that.

Edited June 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13479]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Every "citation" you post is absolute garbage. If you spend even 5 minutes fact checking that link you just posted, you'd know it's complete trash. But you are an empty-headed intellectually dishonest elderly man-child. So of course you're not going to do that.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Nah. Do your own homework. I literally just found it in 90 seconds. I'm done attempting any serious conversation with you. You are not a serious person, either emotionally or intellectually. You're a joke, man. We all know it. Some of us just humor you because you're entertaining (dance, bitch), but I'm out.

Edited June 28, 2019 by BradInATX

[Fozzz 152]

The Horrors Of Communism:

Holodomor

Dekulakization

Gulag System

Great Leap Forward

Giving poor people healthcare