Elizabeth Warren 2020

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just do the obvious thing and have people pay an affordable tax for the service holy crap how are we screwing this up?

[Js1 85,085]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Just do the obvious thing and have people pay an affordable tax for the service holy crap how are we screwing this up?

Right

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1) Not a great funding strategy. Better than what exists now, though.

2) Price control is the only way to reduce costs. There's no magic fix to health spending. The idea that private insurance "subsidizes" Medicaid/Medicare is... interesting. BS, but interesting. Bernie's M4A calls for reimbursement above current Medicare. Comparing it to Trump's approach is laughably dishonest.

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

The biggest mistake in Warren's M4A plan is that she specifically crafted it to avoid a middle class tax hike. She wanted to protect herself after being evasive on the middle class tax question that she was asked repeatedly. 

 

[David Dennison 18,646]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Just do the obvious thing and have people pay an affordable tax for the service holy crap how are we screwing this up?

Most Americans like their employer provided plans.

That's how.

Medicare for All is an extremely difficult political lift. So difficult it might require a complete collapse of the current system.

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

I finally checked.  Docs in the UK don't make anywhere near as much money as in the US.  Like half or 2/3 at the GP/PCP level and no specialties making 4-10x more.  And no little business opportunities like running a practice group, a lab, or an imaging clinic. It's a decent job with virtually guaranteed employment, nothing more really.   Their schooling is less of a haul

A massive revamp is going to be utter chaos.  Not just in insurance and pharma.

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

I wonder if Bernie's folks are thinking like this about Warren about now....

[bad_teammate 13,132]

13 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Private insurance pays much higher rates than Medicare.  It’s simply a fact, not BS.   M4A means either a ton less revenue for the healthcare industry, or higher rates being paid by Medicare.

That's not what a subsidy is. I know I didn't get my degree from The College for Middle Management and we engineering types aren't smart enough to understand the complex world of financial markets, but I know what words mean.

The existence of an expensive offering in a space does not mean it is a "subsidy" for cheaper offerings. In fact, the opposite can be (and often is) true.

Quote

But price controls will bring plenty of their own problems that are all ignored by Bernie.   Pretending the industry and the level of service provided won’t be affected at all by massive forced revenue reductions is crazy.   It’s not just cartoon villain drug companies that will have to change their behavior.

Who has said that the services provided wouldn't be affected at all? Source?

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Most Americans like their employer provided plans.

citation needed

Quote

So difficult it might require a complete collapse of the current system.

Yes, that's the point.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's not what a subsidy is. I know I didn't get my degree from The College for Middle Management and we engineering types aren't smart enough to understand the complex world of financial markets, but I know what words mean.

The existence of an expensive offering in a space does not mean it is a "subsidy" for cheaper offerings. In fact, the opposite can be (and often is) true.

Who has said that the services provided wouldn't be affected at all? Source?

citation needed

Yes, that's the point.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Giant headline from your link?

Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied

Just beautiful. Gorgeous, really.

Liking something and being satisfied with it are different words and concepts.

Citation still needed.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Giant headline from your link?

Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied

Just beautiful. Gorgeous, really.

Liking something and being satisfied with it are different words and concepts.

Citation still needed.

Trying to eliminate a system in which 70% of those in the system are satisfied is a nearly impossible political task. 

And this is coming from someone who wants to eliminate and replace that system with Medicare for All. 

[GSU&UT 1,798]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Trying to eliminate a system in which 70% of those in the system are satisfied is a nearly impossible political task. 

And this is coming from someone who wants to eliminate and replace that system with Medicare for All. 

You are completely overestimating this shit, people may be scared of change because they think everything is going to collapse but no one I know likes their insurance company. Almost everyone who has had any kind of extenuating circumstance beyond going to a PCP has an awful story about dealing with their provider. The sooner private health insurance companies lose virtually all of their power, the better, and so many of us aren't afraid of what will happen or how much private specialty groups will lose.

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180625/NEWS/180629957/fragmented-markets-inflate-healthcare-spending

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Anyone that’s ever read a lofty budget plan could see that this MFA payment plan was going to be a convoluted troll job for the critics to concern troll anywhere they could. 

 

When you get to play god with the numbers and tax revenue projections in the budget, almost anything can be conceivably paid for.  

It reminds of Obama’s first budget proposal when he claimed he was going to fully fund public option Obamacare through cap-and-trade while simultaneously cutting the debt in half and pulling the economy out of the recession with the jobs created by Obamacare.

Advancing the concept and movement surrounding a single payer healthcare system in the United States is what is actually important here.  Liz moved the ball by feeding some white papers to the “bUt HoW aRe YoU gOiNg To PaY fOr It?!?” concern trolls.  

At the end of the day, universal healthcare is a moral issue for most progressives, it doesn’t matter how we pay for it.  The health, well-being, prosperity, and economic productivity of the population will vastly improve without predatory actors profiting from denying sick people healthcare coverage. Americans wouldn’t have to be working as slaves in jobs they hate for their mediocre health insurance either. 

Conversely, most folks against a single payer system don’t really give a shit about how we pay for it either.  They just don’t want to give others something they feel they’ve had to work hard and sacrifice for by working in a job they hate/love.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,132]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Trying to eliminate a system in which 70% of those in the system are satisfied is a nearly impossible political task. 

ok thanks for the punditry

[tantric superman 4,667]

41 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

At the end of the day, universal healthcare is a moral issue for most progressives, it doesn’t matter how we pay for it.

So for those  who feel it is a moral issue and who do care how to pay for it?

Public education is a moral issue and I care how we pay for it.

Providing for my family is a moral issue and I care hot to pay for it.

I think the issue here is that progressives need to think about how they are going to pay for stuff.  And they need to realize that people will indeed apply closer scrutiny to massive structural change than they will in simple bloat -- thus requiring something a bit more rigorous than it's a moral issue we don't care how to pay for it.

That's what Warren is counting on.  That you see she is a moral person and you don't give a shit about how stuff is paid for.

 

[And I do realize that virtually no one these days seems to care about the national debt and spending -- certainly not the Republicans.]

.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

16 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

So for those  who feel it is a moral issue and who do care how to pay for it?

Public education is a moral issue and I care how we pay for it.

Providing for my family is a moral issue and I care hot to pay for it.

I think the issue here is that progressives need to think about how they are going to pay for stuff.  And they need to realize that people will indeed apply closer scrutiny to massive structural change than they will in simple bloat -- thus requiring something a bit more rigorous than it's a moral issue we don't care how to pay for it.

That's what Warren is counting on.  That you see she is a moral person and you don't give a shit about how stuff is paid for.

 

[And I do realize that virtually no one these days seems to care about the national debt and spending -- certainly not the Republicans.]

People are sick of watching our leaders give themselves tax cuts, multi-billion dollars bailouts when they fail, and play war games on the nation’s credit card while simultaneously saying we can’t afford to pay to educate our youth or keep the workforce healthy.  

The entire mentality of how we (the people) choose to care about how we pay for things has been pervertedly warped.  

Politicians and corporate whores mislead people to believe spending on healthcare and education are somehow free stuff people should earn or that they’re burdensome expenses when in reality paying to educate the youth and keep the population/workforce from dying prematurely are actually INVESTMENTS in the most valuable resources of our ECONOMY.  Investments that will yield far greater benefits to the world than blowing all our capital trying to turn multi-millionaires into billionaires or destroying countries in the Middle East with insane military spending no one ever questions.  

This country will need a paradigm shift if we want to remain relevant in the cause for advancing the human race. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[BradInATX 9,208]

17 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

So for those  who feel it is a moral issue and who do care how to pay for it?

 

 

You're not actually a real person. Far-lefties out front shoulda told you.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

15 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

So for those  who feel it is a moral issue and who do care how to pay for it?

You have two progressive candidates who are bending over backwards telling you the various ways we can pay for things.

It is not the left that is living in some kind of "everything is free!" fantasy. Warren and Sanders both offer detailed ideas as to how revenue will be generated. It is the centrists (Biden & Buttigieg) and the Republicans who rely on magical thinking and don't talk about funding. Go read Pete's healthcare plans, there is NOTHING about how to generate the additional necessary revenue. Nothing.

We're having a discussion about the intelligence of the various funding mechanisms proposed by Warren and Sanders, but from the center moving rightward, it's just smoke and mirrors.

And you want to condescend about how the left doesn't care how to pay for things? GTFO

[bad_teammate 13,132]

You know who pushes "heh, the lefties think everything is free" narratives? Republicans like

 

*CHECKS NOTES*

 

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

You're not actually a real person. Far-lefties out front shoulda told you.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Go read Pete's healthcare plans, there is NOTHING about how to generate the additional necessary revenue. Nothing.

Pete’s Medicare for All Who Want It plan will cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. It will be paid for by rolling back the Trump corporate tax cuts, which will generate $1.4 trillion in revenue, and the rest from cost savings that result from empowering the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

https://peteforamerica.com/policies/health-care/

[tantric superman 4,667]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And you want to condescend about how the left doesn't care how to pay for things? GTFO

I'm only condescending how Warren doesn't seem to care how to pay for things.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

19 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pete’s Medicare for All Who Want It plan will cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. It will be paid for by rolling back the Trump corporate tax cuts, which will generate $1.4 trillion in revenue, and the rest from cost savings that result from empowering the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Pete's going to guarantee access to Medicare for "All Who Want It" with $1.4T? lol get the hell out of here

Complete fantasy logic.

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'm only condescending how Warren doesn't seem to care how to pay for things.

She just offered a far more detailed cost and funding plan than basically anyone else. FAR more detailed and realistic than the stuff offered by the center, center-right, and right.

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

She just offered a far more detailed cost and funding plan than basically anyone else. FAR more detailed and realistic than the stuff offered by the center, center-right, and right.

Awesome, and she get points for that. 

She'd get points for having a plan to attack Israel or dismantling America's highway system as well. 

Plans are good.

Good plans, and plans that make sense - even better.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Good plans, and plans that make sense - even better.

Which presidential candidate has a better, more complete, plan to actually fund their healthcare initiative?

[tantric superman 4,667]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which presidential candidate has a better, more complete, plan to actually fund their healthcare initiative?

None that I know of.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

None that I know of.

Concern troll is CONCERNED

[David Dennison 18,646]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

ok thanks for the punditry

Doesn't change the politics.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Do you think your confidence in being able to prognosticate "the politics" in such an absolute way is earned?

[David Dennison 18,646]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think your confidence in being able to prognosticate "the politics" in such an absolute way is earned?

Do you think it matters?

[bad_teammate 13,132]

I'll take that as a no.

[David Dennison 18,646]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I'll take that as a no.

I'm pretty sure I've earned the right to say whatever the fuck I want.

So you should take it as a yes.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I'm pretty sure I've earned the right to say whatever the fuck I want.

So you should take it as a yes.

Oh god here comes another centrist in with "MY RIGHTS" when they are challenged.

I didn't ask if you think you've earned the right, I asked if you think your confidence is earned.

Maybe it is, David, maybe you predicted the rise and victory of Donald Trump. Maybe your understanding of the political dynamics of America are second-to-none. I'm just asking.

[David Dennison 18,646]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Oh god here comes another centrist in with "MY RIGHTS" when they are challenged.

I didn't ask if you think you've earned the right, I asked if you think your confidence is earned.

Maybe it is, David, maybe you predicted the rise and victory of Donald Trump. Maybe your understanding of the political dynamics of America are second-to-none. I'm just asking.

Yes. Medicare for All is fun to talk about and it's a great goal.

It's twenty years away at the earliest.

And I'm no centrist. I'm further left than you are.

Edited November 5, 2019 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13,132]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's twenty years away at the earliest.

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning. Hell, there's a number there and everything.

Only TRUE leftists know that power and change come from parliamentary incrementalism.

[tantric superman 4,667]

I guess I'm overestimating the negative aspects of this being an unrealistic plan, or even a bad plan.

 

[David Dennison 18,646]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Can't argue with that kind of reasoning. Hell, there's a number there and everything.

Only TRUE leftists know that power and change come from parliamentary incrementalism.

You have to deal with the reality of the Senate.

Even if Democrats take the majority, they aren't changing the rules.

Sadly.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Every single plan offered by a Democratic candidate above 5%, from the most ambitious (M4A) to the least ambitious (M4AWWI), involve massive restructuring. Even Pete's plan caps reimbursement at 2x Medicare's current rates.

- All of them will either definitely or likely destroy private health insurance entirely.
- All of them will dramatically slice private health insurance market access.

Sorry boys.

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Even if Democrats take the majority, they aren't changing the rules.

This is a good point because it's very rare that American politicians break longstanding rules and the rules of the Senate have basically been locked in stone and unchanged for at least 100 years.

Mmhmmm this is quality punditry.

[David Dennison 18,646]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Every single plan offered by a Democratic candidate above 5%, from the most ambitious (M4A) to the least ambitious (M4AWWI), involve massive restructuring. Even Pete's plan caps reimbursement at 2x Medicare's current rates.

- All of them will either definitely or likely destroy private health insurance entirely.
- All of them will dramatically slice private health insurance market access.

Sorry boys.

This is a good point because it's very rare that American politicians break longstanding rules and the rules of the Senate have basically been locked in stone and unchanged for at least 100 years.

Mmhmmm this is quality punditry.

It is very rare.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The incrementalism to get to a single payer system doesn’t need to and probably shouldn’t be executed through policy.  The gradual move needs to be among the electorate to the point where enough people demand their healthcare as a basic human right.  This is usually how most peaceful dramatic sociopolitical changes come about.  

Bernie and Warren are advancing this cause through their presidential campaigns.  Regardless of whether either becomes President or actually passes a single payer healthcare plan, the real champions of success will be the American people demanding it in the end.  How long it will take to get there is debatable but I haven’t seen this strength of advocacy in my lifetime. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

[bad_teammate 13,132]

15 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It is very rare.

No, it's not. What you're saying here is objectively false as a matter of fact and definition of the word "rare". In the last 15 years, especially, Senate rules change constantly.

You keep saying either false or irrational things to argue that progressive change is impossible, because you're a leftist. Bigtime, from WAY back.

[texastough 1,128]

I think Warren stepped in it by coming out with a health care plan along with how to fund it, putting a target on her back. Obviously, congress -- not the president -- passes legislation. POTUS can be a strong advocate for a health care system, but ultimately there will be compromises. She should have pointed that out and basically said "I will support any plans that lower health care costs and expand coverage at the same time. If thats a version of M4A, great. But there may be other plans, short of M4A, that I would also support. Anything would be better than what republicans are currently offering."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 minute ago, texastough said:

 

I think Warren stepped in it by coming out with a health care plan along with how to fund it, putting a target on her back

 

This has been the Warren campaign in a nutshell the entire time.  She LOVES stepping in it.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

The woman who is widely seen as the frontrunner should model her campaign after those who have already dropped out, are about to drop out, or should have dropped out a long time ago.

That would be smart of her.

I am a brain genius.

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

Hey @Hugo Stiglitz, since you're following the Warren campaign super closely, what's your reading on who could be the potential VP? 

I'm getting the strong sense that Castro is auditioning for the role, if not outright in discussions with Warren.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Hey @Hugo Stiglitz, since you're following the Warren campaign super closely, what's your reading on who could be the potential VP? 

I'm getting the strong sense that Castro is auditioning for the role, if not outright in discussions with Warren.  

I hate this debate, I don’t give a shit who her VP is but Castro is the most popular choice among the Warren Gs and it’s not close.

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I hate this debate, I don’t give a shit who her VP is but Castro is the most popular choice among the Warren Gs and it’s not close.

Thanks. I think there are a few of factors that make sense where Castro could be the pick. 

1. He's focused heavily on immigration and criminal justice reform, and could be a good #2 to help her with POC. Also at least starts the narrative that Texas "could be in play". 

2. Castro desperately asked for 800k in donations to end October, got the 800k, then promptly laid off his NH and SC staff. His days in the race are numbered and he's probably just hoping to make next debate. If he doesn't, my guess is he drops out later this month. 

3. Lastly with my admittedly cynical view of political gamesmanship, I think he's basically an attack dog for Warren. He mocked Biden at a recent debate, went after Buttigieg on lack of black support, and his national press secretary (Sawyer Hackett) has gone scorched earth on Pete via Twitter over the last week or so. It's pretty fascinating to watch. 

 

I think Castro has benefited from a lack of vetting due to his low polling throughout the primary. I think he sucks. Hopefully Warren goes with someone else, because if he ends up being her running mate people will start to pay attention and realize he's pretty shitty. 

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

Is Castro a Fop or a Dapper Dan man?

(When I googled "Julian Castro's Hair Cream" I got this,

People also ask

Is Julian Castro related to Fidel Castro? )

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Thanks. I think there are a few of factors that make sense where Castro could be the pick. 

1. He's focused heavily on immigration and criminal justice reform, and could be a good #2 to help her with POC. Also at least starts the narrative that Texas "could be in play". 

2. Castro desperately asked for 800k in donations to end October, got the 800k, then promptly laid off his NH and SC staff. His days in the race are numbered and he's probably just hoping to make next debate. If he doesn't, my guess is he drops out later this month. 

3. Lastly with my admittedly cynical view of political gamesmanship, I think he's basically an attack dog for Warren. He mocked Biden at a recent debate, went after Buttigieg on lack of black support, and his national press secretary (Sawyer Hackett) has gone scorched earth on Pete via Twitter over the last week or so. It's pretty fascinating to watch. 

 

I think Castro has benefited from a lack of vetting due to his low polling throughout the primary. I think he sucks. Hopefully Warren goes with someone else, because if he ends up being her running mate people will start to pay attention and realize he's pretty shitty. 

 

The VP debate is so premature and a waste of time right now.  Six months ago I was making a case for Beto as VP but looking at how much has changed over six months, I’d take Castro now but again this is all subject to change. 

The VP is going to be a non-factor in the 2020 election unless something goes catastrophically wrong.  Get the top of the ticket settled, then worry about the near irrelevant running mate.