Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

 

Or the MFA plan.  One thing that gets a huge positive response is that every other country does universal care at half the cost per person.  Great!  Fantastic!  We can do that here!  Heck, I'm happy when my premiums don't go up every year, I don't even need 50% savings.  Except President Sanders is gonna take that 50% savings and increase the benefits to levels heretofore unheard of in a government run healthcare plan.  Is that the trade off people want?  What if people would rather have some options?  What if someone says "You know, I don't need a super duper platinum plan if there's a good solid dependable silver plan for half the price.".  Do people really understand what they are signing on for?

I’m still waiting for the details of what would be covered.  Does 90 year old grandma get every effort to keep her alive even after a terminal cancer diagnosis?  Extreme example but what are the limits?  Anyways, this should probably go to healthcare thread.

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I confused the Warren wealth tax with the Sanders' plan.  Sanders' is progressive from 5% of billion, ramping up to a flat 8% on everything above 10 billion.  In order to avoid the decrease in wealth, billionaires will have to generate a 5+% return on their entire asset portfolio.  This is a not a given as it would be rare to have the entire wealth consist of income generating assets.  Especially when you can still make money in the US market without being a US citizen or have a tax base in US (Apple ring a bell anyone?), billionaires would have to be stupid to depreciate their asset by 5% every year when they can still make money in the US market without incurring that penalty.  Furthermore, asset decrease would have to be offset with post-tax dollars, which still puts rate of needed ROI at roughly 8% to 13% (assuming tax rate of the highest bracket doesn't increase further).  That's a pretty aggressive investment approach when you're talking about the whole asset portfolio.  But my criticism is based on the most rosy scenario where billionaires do not leave.

 

As to billionaires becoming millionaires, I'm not shedding a tear over that.  I'm talking about the math.  Sanders is banking on the wealth tax to generate 4.35 trillion over the next decade.  As the billionaires' wealth decrease (which is a stated goal of Sanders), the tax revenue from the wealth tax will dry up too (though the 4.35 trillion is for all wealth over 32 million, so it won't be gone entirely).  Even if just one trillion dollar is gone, that's one trillion dollar that will have to be made up with taxes elsewhere.

 

Many of those costs go down over time - along with the loss of some of the income from Billionaires. We can also get money from not being the worlds cops and getting out of regime change wars. Again, a small increase in net cost for middle class is fine. Again, it's worth it to eliminate the risk of medical bankruptcy. This says nothing of the ability to reign in run away medical costs. 

 

Not necessarily directed at you personally as i don't know all your positions - I find it interesting that republicans are so concerned about how to pay for keeping people healthy and alive but are more than OK making massive tax cuts to provide the more money to kill people in other countries and provide the wealthy a big tax break (no, it does not trickle down, that is another of the rights many myths, proved wrong twice already and about to be 3) .

 

BTW - Going back 50 yrs to Nixon, every single republican has left office with higher deficit spending than when they came in where all the democrats except Carter left with lower deficit spending. And Carter was virtually flat. 

 

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Billionaires can easily change citizenship to avoid the wealth tax and still make money in US markets (or are we going to impose a wealth tax on non-US citizens and foreign investors?)

 

They can do that now and do. The fear of some mass exadus is again proven to be false. Will some leave? Possibly. But some mass exodus? Not hardly. 

 

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

So I'm supposed to judge him based on what?  A potential compromise position that he has not bothered to discuss or even hinted as to whether he'll entertain?

 

No, you should judge him on history of those campaigning on change. We have checks and balances in place for a reason. But sometimes you need to start in an extreme position to get some reasonable movement. Here is a video worth watching about how the fact is Bernie's positions a are not actually as far left as people make it out to be - in fact for many he the compromise to a much more progressive agenda. 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

You're thinking medicaid, not medicare.

 

No I was not at all. It was a typo - I meant Medical Care in general. 

 

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

Experts disagree on whether Sanders' version of MFA will be cheaper than the current system.  With current system estimated at 3.5 trillion per year on healthcare spending, the range is from 3 trillion to 4.2 trillion.  If it is cheaper, we'll pay less.  If it is more expensive, the additional money will have to come from somewhere.  A natural question, since Sanders often sells other countries' model as support for MFA, why not consider an option where some portion of healthcare is provided to all in a universal, single payer system, and other portion can be optionally insured or paid out of pocket by individuals?  The single payer part of that plan will obviously be cheaper.  And if people are happy with what the mandatory single payer portion provides (or if they get supplemental coverage through union negotiated coverage for example), they can stop there.  If they want to get more coverage, they can find private insurance for it.  Like how medicare works now (given that they call it medicare for all and everything).  Like how pretty much every universal, single payer system works in the rest of the world.  Instead we have to go from the most privatized healthcare system to the most state run?  

 

Most other countries do have a private option - including the countries is referring to. That just gets ignored. 

 

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

No one prefers (at least no one should) the US healthcare system to those being implemented in other developed countries.  The problem is that Sanders is not proposing to implement those systems of other developed countries.  He's proposing something much much larger in scope.  Which is fine.  We can have that debate.  But I would not be surprised one bit if there is a large segment out there that doesn't realize what MFA really means (they may, you know, actually think it is current Medicare for all).  The time to have that debate is now, not during the general.

 

But he is fact proposing modeling those - but with improvements. We should be looking at the best of those systems and fixing those things that are not as good. That is all he is saying. 

 

The time to have this conversation is now and every minute. The sad part is that it really should not be a discussion at all on "if". It should be a bi-partisan "how and when". That republicans keep pushing back on this so hard shows that ultimately they really do not understand what people want. I believe it will be to their own peril.  

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

36 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I’m still waiting for the details of what would be covered.  Does 90 year old grandma get every effort to keep her alive even after a terminal cancer diagnosis?  Extreme example but what are the limits?  Anyways, this should probably go to healthcare thread.

 

I'll just say this.  Healthcare is the foremost issue on the voters mind and it is a huge part of the Sanders' candidacy.  I get that healthcare policy debates belong elsewhere, but what the candidate's position is and also what kind of an electoral/political issue that creates seem to be fair game.  Nonetheless, I will move it to the healthcare thread

[goskins10]

48 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I’m still waiting for the details of what would be covered.  Does 90 year old grandma get every effort to keep her alive even after a terminal cancer diagnosis?  Extreme example but what are the limits?  Anyways, this should probably go to healthcare thread.

 

I could disagree more. This is at the core of the different candidates. I think we at ES are starting to try to be too pure in what is discussed in threads. I could get it if we were discussing something unrelated or only tangentially relayed. 

 

But any discussion of "donnie vs bernie" has to include health care. The health care thread is to talk about the current and proposed systems as a whole but I could easily see some cross-over.

 

You ask a valid question abotu what the limits are. I agree there could be big differences. But ultimately I think this is where the battle ground for the general election will be. donnie vs bernie will be won or lost on health care. That starts with how well can Bernie do in SC. 

 

Latest polls show him now in a virtual tie with Biden for the lead. If Biden leads even his current life support campaign should be over.  

 

 

[Larry]

So, the #1 most important issue of the campaign is going to be "I've got this great health care plan.  But I can't tell you any specific details about it, except that it's going to cover everything, and everything will be free.  And it's going to cost less than what you're paying now.  (Unless you're a billin=onaire.  Maybe not then.)  We're going to look at all the other countries in the world, and we're going to take the best parts of all of them.  And be even better than them.  And I'll actually tell you about the details, after I get elected."  

 

And the voters are going to flock to it, in an overwhelming mandate.  As though they hadn't heard the same thing, four years ago.  

 

[goskins10]

Just now, Larry said:

So, the #1 most important issue of the campaign is going to be "I've got this great health care plan.  But I can't tell you any specific details about it, except that it's going to cover everything, and everything will be free.  And it's going to cost less than what you're paying now.  (Unless you're a billin=onaire.  Maybe not then.)  We're going to look at all the other countries in the world, and we're going to take the best parts of all of them.  And be even better than them.  And I'll actually tell you about the details, after I get elected."  

 

And the voters are going to flock to it, in an overwhelming mandate.  As though they hadn't heard the same thing, four years ago.  

 

 

Not true - here are the details of his plan. He has provided details. It just never gets reported. When it's jsut him they will have no choice.

 

https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

 

[Llevron]

^^^Thank you I have never read the details personally - but I think that illustrates the problem. 

[Renegade7]

Health Care is too complex to have that debate here, we've stopped and moved to the health care thread repeatedly because its the right thing to do to leave this thread to focus on the campaigns themselves.  If we discuss all their policies here it will be a catch all thread and be impossible to see jus what's going on with the campaign and polls, the issues should have their own threads to debate plans for them, every issues shouldnt be debated in one thread.

 

And I'm not buying anyone saying there isnt enough info on this MFA plan, the senate bill and house bill have been compared a lot, and I've posted the senate.gov link for how to pay I've lost count how many times and asked people to show lines that directly affect them.

 

It cant fit into 30 second bites, but that all has been publicly avaliable for a while now, Bernie cant make people read them if they dont want to.  I'll wait for someone to post in the health care thread any house or senate Bill's for the public options or its costs, I may have missed it, but se shouldnt do that here, this posts get too huge and folks complain about not focusing on the overall campaigns and presidential election itself.

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not true - here are the details of his plan. He has provided details. It just never gets reported. When it's jsut him they will have no choice.

 

https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

 

 

Quote

Medicare For All is a universal healthcare system, where everyone is covered for all necessary health services, with no deductibles or copays.  All healthcare providers and doctors will be in the network. Medicare for All will pay healthcare providers for visits, tests, and procedures according to a set schedule of prices.  We know this system works because that’s how it works with the highly popular Medicare system that we have now. Medicare For All would use the same framework as Medicare, but expand it to cover more people and more health services. Private health insurers can offer coverage for services not covered by Medicare For All, such as elective cosmetic surgeries. Everyone will be covered and can get the care that they need when they need it.

 

Well, you got me there.  

 

It will cover everything Medicare covers.  With no deductibles or copays.  And other things that aren't specified.  (Edit.  He does specify, later in the document,  that it will also pay all dental and vision costs.  And prescription drugs.  And all long term care costs.)  

 

But he did specify that it won't cover elective cosmetic surgery.  

 

I guess the biased media should stop saying he hasn't provided any details, now.  

[PF Chang]

43 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

It will cover everything Medicare covers.  With no deductibles or copays.  And other things that aren't specified.  (Edit.  He does specify, later in the document,  that it will also pay all dental and vision costs.  And prescription drugs.  And all long term care costs.)  

 

 

 

 

The Sanders plan is not just "let's have European healthcare." I really think he has managed to convince people that none of his ideas are extreme, and that if you're wondering how the Bernie Math checks out then you're basically a Republican. Cutting the military budget is not going to fund the trillions these plans require. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I just tuned into the town hall.  Did Bernie just say (paraphrasing) that the cost of health care and college, etc will go down because paperwork and red tape will be cut?  The one thing the government is good at is ADDING paperwork and red tape.

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I just tuned into the town hall.  Did Bernie just say (paraphrasing) that the cost of health care and college, etc will go down because paperwork and red tape will be cut?  The one thing the government is good at is ADDING paperwork and red tape.

 

I actually think that's a believable claim.  At least when it comes to healthcare.  

 

Even if you assume that Medicare will have more paperwork and stupid rules than private insurance, (a not-unreasonable assumption, IMO), providers will only have to deal with one set of rules.  Instead of currently having to deal with hundreds.  

 

I could see that claim being true.  

[The Sisko]

3 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

Just a follow up to this...I got a letter from my county that my husband had been removed from the voter rolls due to his passing not even 3 weeks after (with all of their stupid condolences).

Georgia is suppressing voters at breakneck speed. They can't do jack **** in 3 weeks for anything else. 

I got my concealed carry permit in just about 2 - 3 weeks. That’s a county thing, but still. When they want to have something work, it works.

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

Not true - here are the details of his plan. He has provided details. It just never gets reported. When it's jsut him they will have no choice.

 

https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/

 

Except the two most important details, i.e. how much will it cost and will he change reimbursement rates. As it stands, Medicare patients are money losers for healthcare providers. If you make every patient a money loser for them....well, you can see where I’m going with this. However, if you increase reimbursements, then the cost goes up.

 

Look, I’m a believer in single payer, I just think we need to offer a public option and let it take care of itself. It wouldn’t take very long for employers to start dropping their employee plans if everyone can sign up for MFA. But no, Bernie and my personal choice, Warren have got to have their revolution.🙄

 

If I’m honest though, on the one hand, I’d like to see Bernie come in as a Dem version of Tя☭mp and just **** up shop. OTOH, it’ll be a disaster of epic proportions. He’d be a one and done and then the Grand Oligarch’s Party could point and say “See, we told you this stuff doesn’t work” and probably return to full control again. We’re schtupped now, but if that happens, whooo! I don’t even want to think about it. I’m almost of the mind that we’d be better letting Tя☭mp stay in power IF we can get the Senate back so he and the GOP can own the next recession.

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I actually think that's a believable claim.  At least when it comes to healthcare.  

 

Even if you assume that Medicare will have more paperwork and stupid rules than private insurance, (a not-unreasonable assumption, IMO), providers will only have to deal with one set of rules.  Instead of currently having to deal with hundreds.  

 

I could see that claim being true.  

There is some truth to that. Insurers intentionally make their plans highly opaque and complicated with tons of paperwork because it causes delays, decreased usage, and mistakes in claims that saves them money. Also, taking their profit out of the picture saves a lot of money and providers already know how to bill Medicare.

[bearrock]

Sanders' description of MFA is misleading.  I believe intentionally so (since this isn't a specific policy discussion, I think it's fair game here).

 

Quote

Medicare For All is a universal healthcare system, where everyone is covered for all necessary health services, with no deductibles or copays.  All healthcare providers and doctors will be in the network. Medicare for All will pay healthcare providers for visits, tests, and procedures according to a set schedule of prices.  We know this system works because that’s how it works with the highly popular Medicare system that we have now.

 

That statement is accurate only if applied to the statement right before that "Medicare for All will pay healthcare providers for visits, tests, and procedures according to a set schedule of prices." (this is also true of private insurances too, though I get the gist of what they are trying to say).  Medicare obviously does have deductibles and copay and standing alone is often worse than traditional private insurance in the sense that the coinsurance has no annual cap (thus the need for medigap plans).

 

Another statement from Sanders that annoys me to no end 

 

Quote

Bernie is proposing a healthcare system like what is found in Canada, Europe, and other developed nations.

 

This is false.  What's more, Sanders should know it's false without a shadow of a doubt.  There's not even a gray area.  Other single payer universal plans have government plans that provide certain level of care for covered services, which people supplement (if they choose) with private plans.  Private plans can function like medigap.  It can also cover above and beyond for covered healthcare like specialists, single room hospital stay, implants and porcelain procedure instead of amalgam and precious metal, more expensive devices, etc.  Sanders plan envisions a much greater role for government plan in that it will cover all necessary medical services and private insurance will not be allowed to provide anything in that arena.  

 

It's this simple.  Other developed countries' health care system spends about half of what US currently spends per patient on healthcare.  The most optimistic estimate of the Sanders plan is that it will save 1/7th of the cost.  Some estimate it will cost more than what we spend on healthcare right now.  That's because what currently exists in other countries is not comparable with the Sanders plan.  Sanders plan is way more robust.  That also means it costs way more.  Which is all fine if you believe in it and you want to sell it.  But FFS, stop calling it Medicare for All and write drivel like those statements above because it's totally misleading.  So your plan is what?  People won't figure it out?  That it will never pass anyway so it won't matter?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I actually think that's a believable claim.  At least when it comes to healthcare.  

 

Even if you assume that Medicare will have more paperwork and stupid rules than private insurance, (a not-unreasonable assumption, IMO), providers will only have to deal with one set of rules.  Instead of currently having to deal with hundreds.  

 

I could see that claim being true.  

As a consumer of government run healthcare, I’d like to point out that I can’t get records to transfer from one medical facility to another that are in the same branch of service.  Recently I had major surgery and was in the hospital for a few day.  I was finally told I could check out at around 0630.  Didn’t actually get to leave until around 1800 due to paperwork.  Pharmacy lines tend to be hours long and that is if I call in ahead of time and schedule for pickup.  I once was told I had Lou Gherigs disease when it turned out to be a kidney stone.  The fact that AF and USN medical systems don’t talk was part of it.  

 

I could go on and on.  

 

Edit:  For clarity, that in-town record transfer and the surgery thing are two separate issues.  Re-reading this, it may not have been clear.

[Larry]

I also wonder where people are getting numbers for what happens to health care utilization when "the government pays for everything".  

 

One effect of deductibles is that they function kinda like the replay challenge fules in the NFL.  If you're only allowed two, and they might cost you a time out, then you don't throw the flag if it's a case of 2nd and 6 vs 2nd and 8.  

[goskins10]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

I also wonder where people are getting numbers for what happens to health care utilization when "the government pays for everything".  

 

One effect of deductibles is that they function kinda like the replay challenge fules in the NFL.  If you're only allowed two, and they might cost you a time out, then you don't throw the flag if it's a case of 2nd and 6 vs 2nd and 8.  

 

But this is not football. It's peoples health. And you should air on the side of getting care - be proactive. The current system leaves people not seeking care because they cannot afford the deductibles only deciding to go when it's something really bad.

 

Problem with that is that many times they should have gotten care and they would have recovered much faster resulting in a more healthy society. Lower costs in  the end.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

As a consumer of government run healthcare, I’d like to point out that I can’t get records to transfer from one medical facility to another that are in the same branch of service.  Recently I had major surgery and was in the hospital for a few day.  I was finally told I could check out at around 0630.  Didn’t actually get to leave until around 1800 due to paperwork.  Pharmacy lines tend to be hours long and that is if I call in ahead of time and schedule for pickup.  I once was told I had Lou Gherigs disease when it turned out to be a kidney stone.  The fact that AF and USN medical systems don’t talk was part of it.  

 

I could go on and on.  

 

Edit:  For clarity, that in-town record transfer and the surgery thing are two separate issues.  Re-reading this, it may not have been clear.

 

Just pointing out, I'm pretty sure that nobody else's medical records transfer when they go to a different hospital, either.  (In many cases.  Assume that if they're both owned by the same company, they might.)  

 

That's also one possible benefit of single payer.  If Medicare is the only insurer in the US, then they can simply wave a wand and dec lare that all providers must maintain records according to (this 900 page RFP here).  

 

It's a big stick, dictatorial move.  But dictatorships can be more efficient.  Some times.  

[TradeTheBeal!]

One of my closest Bernie Bro friends is a guy I play guitar with from time to time.

 

Late 30s, 350+ lbs, smokes a lot of pot, pack of Camels a day kind of guy.  And he’s starting to fall apart.  He really, really wants some sweet M4A as he has trouble keeping steady work...cause he’s really, really fat and lazy.

 

Anyhoo, what I’m trying to say is that most, if not all, of those Euro-model countries invest in the health and nutrition of their citizens from cradle to grave.  And we don’t do that here...at all.  

 

In fact, we do the exact opposite.  Because obesity is extremely profitable.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Problem with that is that many times they should have gotten care and they would have recovered much faster resulting in a more healthy society. Lower costs in  the end.

 

I've seen the argument (and believe it) that that was one of the big cost safers of Obamacare.  Mandating that screening and preventative care were "no deductible" procedures.  

 

It might not be in a private insurer's interest to pay for a colonoscopy.  But if you're insuring everybody, then it's easy to show that making colonoscopies free eliminates X sunber of cancer patients a year.  

[88Comrade2000]

It’s time Obama, Pelosi and Shumur have a talk Saturday with the non Bernie field. They need to convince Whoever doesn’t get 15% on Saturday to drop out.

 

 

[visionary]

So not Biden or Bloomberg.  lol

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Well, i see the democratic party faithful is feeling the bern...

 

 

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

I don’t even want to think about it. I’m almost of the mind that we’d be better letting Tя☭mp stay in power IF we can get the Senate back so he and the GOP can own the next recession.

 

Your forgetting about supreme court. if trump wins the election, he gets to pick probably 1 maybe 2 supreme court justices.  Senate going to be hard to flip and keep over the midterms.

[visionary]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-democratic-town-hall-south-carolina-monday/h_9f565dd7ac0231f235f99c41ddbd6487

Quote

 

Sanders stands by Castro comments, knocks Democratic critics
From CNN's Gregory Krieg

 

Bernie Sanders on Monday night stood by his qualified praise of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, again talking up a "literacy program" the government launched in its first years.

 

"There were a lot of folks in Cuba at that point who were illiterate. He formed the literacy brigade," Sanders said. "(Castro) went out and they helped people learn to read and write. You know what, I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing."

 

Sanders dismissed the criticism he received from members of Congress as politically motivated.

 

"If you want to disagree with me, if somebody wants to say – and by the way, all of those congresspeople that you mentioned just so happen to be supporting other candidates, just accidentally, no doubt. Coincidentally," Sanders said. "But the truth is the truth, and that’s what happened in the first years of the Castro regime."

🙄