PF Chang Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 3 hours ago, bearrock said: Sanders' supporters - Bernie is the only person with a plan for healthcare, others are lacking in detail or merely goals. Me - Sanders plan lacks many important details, especially with respect to funding. Sanders' supporters - MFA is a starting point and we'll figure out the details later. Me - ???? I read through Renegade's link of the MFA financing options. Adding up the revenue raised by all of those plans gets you to about $16 trillion. So even if all of that list happens, we're short $14 trillion on the $30 trillion estimate for MFA. So we're either raising taxes even more than that list or we're borrowing/printing money. I assume people like Sanders and AOC, who have endorsed MMT economics, aren't worried about that. Here is a link to Greg Mankiw's thoughts on MMT: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/skeptics_guide_to_modern_monetary_theory.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 11 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: The Dems have done a woeful job preparing their next generation of leaders. Maybe even worse than the GOP. For this I do blame the current leadership who refuse to hand off control to the generation who will be alive to see their decisions have longer term impacts on the country. ****, you can't be President unless you're 35 or 40. Right? Well, even if it means you are disqualifying somebody who would be good at it and is healthy. I think 65 is a nice ceiling when taking office. This, 100%. I agree with Bernie on the issues (most at least) but I freely admit that he isn't the best at explaining and arguing his points. He way too often gets stuck in the "repeat same 5 things over and over" mode instead of really focusing in on specific questions being asked. I get that he is trying to win on ideas, but I am yearning for the next generation that is more sharp and savvy to enter the fray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: They'd rather bern it all down and blame it on the Party for Sanders losing the nomination in 2016. At no point have the bros accepted that Bernie lost the popular vote in 2016. The doctrine of infallibility. Dear leader can never fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 34 minutes ago, PF Chang said: I read through Renegade's link of the MFA financing options. Adding up the revenue raised by all of those plans gets you to about $16 trillion. So even if all of that list happens, we're short $14 trillion on the $30 trillion estimate for MFA. So we're either raising taxes even more than that list or we're borrowing/printing money. I assume people like Sanders and AOC, who have endorsed MMT economics, aren't worried about that. So out of fairness to Sanders, I will point out that he breaks down MFA cost as 47 trillion over 10 years, which includes the 30 trillion Fed, State, and Local government are already slotted to pay for (this figure seems high to me because most recent HHS figure I saw puts government spending at slightly below 50% of total national healthcare spending, but maybe something changes during the 10 years). The 16 trillion is of course still a trillion short of 17, but it's really no longer relevant because he has shifted funding proposals around. Things like wall street tax goes to college tuitions now and he does have a proposal that at least adds up to 17 trillion. My concern is that those supposed 17 trillion sounds inaccurate (some downright illogical) and that the 17 trillion is unlikely to be sustainable long term. So the shortfall will be there in decade 2, grow larger in decade 3, etc. And thank you for the link on MMT, that was a very interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 3 hours ago, NoCalMike said: It's a sad state of affairs in this country when even the middle of the road corporate democrats are in a dead heat with Trump, and this is after 4 years of his nonsense. I can see why Conservative would want nothing to do with Bernie, yet somehow he is beating Trump in a lot of polls where as the supposed "safe choices" are either tied or losing. This country is bizarre sometimes. this is why declarations of the fall of a party always wind up being premature as much as we talk about cult of personality, and low information voters, and all that, we forget that fundamentally there are some divides in the views. abortion, guns, taxes, foreign policy, and healthcare... people prefer their side of the aisle even if the person representing that side at that time is a terrible person. it’s not hard to flip the script and see that plenty of people on the left would choose a piss poor candidate (that at least supports their agenda, or at the very least isn’t diametrically opposed to the agenda) over a quality candidate from the other side that has a platform you fundamentally (and possibly categorically) disagree with im just guessing but I have no problem seeing some of the same people declaring that it’s unreasonable to support trump just because you disagree with the dems ideas, deciding they couldn’t vote for a R if situations were reverse and the R was for banning abortion, expanding gun rights, going back pre-ACA healthcare, etc. im not saying everyone. I’m saying there’s plenty of those people, or at least I think. it’s easy to tell someone else to give up their political ideology. Harder to do it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: I have a serious questions to the Bernie supporters here. If Bernie is the delegate leader going into the convention & the Democrats deny him the nomination: 1. How will you feel? Not ok. Would make this probably the last election I take part in. Idea being, stop Trump. But this is not a party for me. 2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: 2. Would you still vote for the Dem nominee? More than likely. Though this would remind me of the losing strategy they had last time. 2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: 3. Would you vote third party or sit out the election? Probably not. Tried that once got Trump. 2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: 4. Would you vote against Democrats wherever possible? You mean vote Republican? Definitely not. 2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: 5. Would you urge Bernie to run as a third party/independent candidate? Would that even possible at such a late date- to get him on enough ballots to get 270 votes? I wouldn’t urge him. But if he did he would probably get my vote in all honesty. He won’t though that would be putting Trump in office. 2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: 6. Would you urge people to run against the Dems? No. This would be compounding an already ****ed situation. 1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Democrats screwed up by letting him run as a Dem in the first place. But it's too late in the race to go back now. The fact that they were stupid enough to sit back and watch this happen as predictable as it was makes me lose faith in their leadership. Making it worse just solidifies that for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 4 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: Somebody I know (not me of course😉) tried this in our primary under the silly notion that the electorate would never be stupid enough to vote Tя☭mp into office. We all know how that turned out. I’m still....’er he’s still kicking himself to this day given the bile he had to swallow to press that button. 3 hours ago, twa said: I like open primaries, especially in local districts such as mine where one party is almost guaranteed to win(minority drawn district) of course you then must choose between influencing your local rep choices or the state,national ones. What these folk are supporting is abhorrent to me, though I might be making a distinction w/o a real difference. people gonna people devils gonna devil A slight correction since anyone supporting Tя☭mp is abhorrent to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 19 minutes ago, bearrock said: So out of fairness to Sanders, I will point out that he breaks down MFA cost as 47 trillion over 10 years, which includes the 30 trillion Fed, State, and Local government are already slotted to pay for (this figure seems high to me because most recent HHS figure I saw puts government spending at slightly below 50% of total national healthcare spending, but maybe something changes during the 10 years). Making sure I understand this - the $30 trillion over 10 years already slotted is current gov't healthcare spending, and it's a marginal $17 trillion to cover everyone under Medicare? It seems hard to believe that a huge expansion of coverage is only that much more, but maybe the reduction in overhead costs and the idea that the older, most expensive people are the Medicare population currently. I don't know enough about the structure. Healthcare costs are way too opaque in the US and if we do end up with MFA I hope it changes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, PF Chang said: Making sure I understand this - the $30 trillion over 10 years already slotted is current gov't healthcare spending, and it's a marginal $17 trillion to cover everyone under Medicare? It seems hard to believe that a huge expansion of coverage is only that much more, but maybe the reduction in overhead costs and the idea that the older, most expensive people are the Medicare population currently. I don't know enough about the structure. Healthcare costs are way too opaque in the US and if we do end up with MFA I hope it changes that. Yes. So the Yale study that Sanders uses actually predicts national spending on healthcare to go down with MFA (some studies have it going up). Yale study says national healthcare spending would be 52 trillion over the next decade if nothing is done. Now this includes everything such as medicaid, medicare, private insurance, patient share, and out of pocket expenditure by uninsured. I'm think it even attaches a value to charitable coverage and write offs too. So under that study, expansion of coverage by MFA just shifts what expenditure is covered by what program while resulting in overall less spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 MFA has as great a chance as the border wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 hour ago, PF Chang said: Here is a link to Greg Mankiw's thoughts on MMT: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/skeptics_guide_to_modern_monetary_theory.pdf If anybody is really interested ( @bearrock ), the authors of the textbook have responded and accused Manikaw of being misleading/underhanded. I'm linking to part 3 of the response because it links back to part 1 and 2 and the opposite doesn't seem to happen. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43997 Classical microeconomics at best is having a hard time explaining what has been happening in Japan. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/modern-monetary-theorys-reluctant-poster-child-japan.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 The Yale study is pretty dubious. They expect billions of dollars in the increase of preventative care, which runs in the face of a large number of studies that show increases in preventative care don't actually save money. https://khn.org/news/bernie-sanders-embraces-a-new-study-that-lowers-medicare-for-alls-price-tag-but-skepticism-abounds/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 37 minutes ago, Springfield said: MFA has as great a chance as the border wall. Especially if Mexico is paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Especially if Mexico is paying for it. ESPECIALLY if Mexico is paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 4 minutes ago, PeterMP said: The Yale study is pretty dubious. They expect billions of dollars in the increase of preventative care, which runs in the face of a large number of studies that show increases in preventative care don't actually save money. https://khn.org/news/bernie-sanders-embraces-a-new-study-that-lowers-medicare-for-alls-price-tag-but-skepticism-abounds/ I agree, but I'm obviously not qualified to delve into it (like that's ever stopped me before 😉). Also, I see enough problems in the current MFA proposals even under that rosy scenario that I just go with the number for the sake of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Preventative care seems a long term money loser. Yes, you may treat illness A for far cheaper because you caught it earlier. However, by catching all the illnesses earlier, one likely increases the life span. So without the preventative treatments, the average patient died on illness G. With the preventative care, we have smaller payments for A - G, but now we have to pay for H - Z. What's more the end of life care which is a huge cost driver remains. There is, as of yet, no preventative care for old age and ultimately death. None of that says preventative care is a bad thing for universal health plan to cover. It simply is not a good policy for keeping expenditures down. There are also some exceptions. The most obvious one is birth control as a preventative measure. Insurance companies discovered long ago providing birth control at little or even no cost saves them money. This is because births are expensive, and the birth control has little impact on the likelihood of birth costs for the patient down the road. It just stops them from incurring the costs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 At the Bernie rally in Richmond... had to check out the likely nominee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 So for those not confident Bernie can win (gen election), do they think all these state polls showing him beating Trump (albeit often times close margin) are goosed somehow or do they just think between now and election time the "ooohhh evil Socialism" narrative will slowly erode support for him? What I wonder is if Bernie manages to get the nomination, will MSNBC, (which right now is obviously going hard at Bernie trying to find any single establishment candidate to take him out) do what Fox did when Trump got the nominee and do the 180 flip to Pro-Bernie and suddenly have a come to reality moment that the "socialism" narrative they have been pushing for the last year is false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 10 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: At the Bernie rally in Richmond... had to check out the likely nominee Im about 2 miles away at my shop. If you wanna grab a beer afterwards, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 16 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: At the Bernie rally in Richmond... had to check out the likely nominee Get him to sign your “rage against the dying of the light” tattoo. You can do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 51 minutes ago, PeterMP said: If anybody is really interested ( @bearrock ), the authors of the textbook have responded and accused Manikaw of being misleading/underhanded. I'm linking to part 3 of the response because it links back to part 1 and 2 and the opposite doesn't seem to happen. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43997 Classical microeconomics at best is having a hard time explaining what has been happening in Japan. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/modern-monetary-theorys-reluctant-poster-child-japan.html Thanks for posting these. The situation in Japan is interesting. It's been too long since I've studied this but I think the idea of MV=PY where M is money supply, V is velocity, P is price and Y is output holds up, but the question is about typical assumptions of V and Y vs "real world" outcomes. I'm open to changing my mind about MMT in general. When it comes to Sanders and AOC my concern is that it's become a convenient excuse for them to print money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 20 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: So for those not confident Bernie can win (gen election), do they think all these state polls showing him beating Trump (albeit often times close margin) are goosed somehow or do they just think between now and election time the "ooohhh evil Socialism" narrative will slowly erode support for him? I fear the erosion of support from the label to a degree. But moreso I fear that at least some of those polls severely overestimate under 30 turnout. I read a Vox article that I linked a few pages back that wrote that some of the positive Sanders polls rely on respondent's stated intention on head to head choices: For Trump, For candidate X, Will not vote. The article pointed out that Sanders loses some in the middle but polls have him making up for it by 11% increase in under 30 turnout. That is apparently a larger increase than black voter turnout in 2008. Seems overly optimistic to me. Quote What I wonder is if Bernie manages to get the nomination, will MSNBC, (which right now is obviously going hard at Bernie trying to find any single establishment candidate to take him out) do what Fox did when Trump got the nominee and do the 180 flip to Pro-Bernie and suddenly have a come to reality moment that the "socialism" narrative they have been pushing for the last year is false? Some will probably highlight that socialism =/= totalitarianism. People like Matthews will probably remain at least skeptical. I would imagine the overall tenor would be Trump must be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 22 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: So for those not confident Bernie can win (gen election), do they think all these state polls showing him beating Trump (albeit often times close margin) are goosed somehow or do they just think between now and election time the "ooohhh evil Socialism" narrative will slowly erode support for him? What I wonder is if Bernie manages to get the nomination, will MSNBC, (which right now is obviously going hard at Bernie trying to find any single establishment candidate to take him out) do what Fox did when Trump got the nominee and do the 180 flip to Pro-Bernie and suddenly have a come to reality moment that the "socialism" narrative they have been pushing for the last year is false? Its already beginning. It was only last week where I said MSNBC (especially Chris Matthews) was being incredibly unfair to Sanders. I believe some people here thought I was floating a "conspiracy against Bernie" conspiracy, but now look at how MSNBC is being viewed negatively. It was so blatant, that anyone with eyes could see what being done, so everyone called out MSNBC. Chris Matthews has now apologized and I've seen several segments about how the polls (the very same polls) are behind Bernie. They were taking those same poll results and trying to tell viewers that it proved America really wanted a moderate and used it to push Pete, Amy and Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.