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

[goskins10]

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

You're right.  We should add up the policies, add up the increase source of tax revenue, and savings from the current expenditure and see where we stand.

 

 

Oops.  

 

 

All this how do we pay for it tripe ignores the consequences of doing nothing - it will only get worse. Now I am sure you have some pithy canned response to that. But all of those "how do we pay for it" lines are excuses. Fact is it can be paid for if it's important enough. And it should be important enough. If you disagree with that then we will never agree. 

 

[NoCalMike]

While all this debate on healthcare is going on during the Dem primary, what exactly is the GOP plan currently?  The last I checked Trump is suing courts to get rid of pre-existing condition coverage while he public says he is protecting it.   What else, besides completely overturning Obamacare has Trump or the GOP at large proposed?

 

For the people who don't want M4A, or a public option, or the M4A...who want it idea.........what is the GOP proposing as an alternative?  From where I stand, if the GOP actually decided to get serious about bringing affordable (and good quality) healthcare to the masses it would be a huge blow to a huge issue that tends to favor Dems regardless of the specific proposal.

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Apparently I'm the problem @tshile 😢 Now I know how you feel.

Yeah we’re going to get blamed for far left policies not having mainstream traction. 
 

I can understand wanting sanders’ and his policy. But those people’s inability to see why others have trouble with it is remarkable to watch over and over. 

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

All this how do we pay for it tripe ignores the consequences of doing nothing - it will only get worse. Now I am sure you have some pithy canned response to that. But all of those "how do we pay for it" lines are excuses. Fact is it can be paid for if it's important enough. And it should be important enough. If you disagree with that then we will never agree. 

 

how do we pay for it is not tripe, it’s not an excuse

 

its a question responsible adults ask before making a big change. Personally, business wise, or for supporting a political movement. 
 

there are ways to answer that question. You’re not using any of those ways. Instead you’re claiming the question is irrelevant; actually you seem to be claiming it’s a nefarious way of trying to shut down the conversation. 
 

you also tend to meet any resistance to your ideas with some comment about how the person you’re talking to must only want to do nothing. Which is not the case

 

im not saying you are one, but you’re coming across as a low information cult of personality voter. To fix that you need to cut out the nonsense and provide quality answers to questions like “how does this get paid for”

 

telling us that’s a dumb question isn’t having the impact you seem to think it should. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

30 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

There certainly is choice.  You and the rest of the workers could get together and negotiate/demand something better.  If it is part of your salary package, you had an opportunity to negotiate that before you signed.  You can negotiate a certain compensation for not taking any employer coverage and then go into the marketplace.  You can change employers to one who offers better coverage and have a minimum standard put into your contract.

 

There is plenty of choice.  You just have to get off your rear end and work for them.

yeah, you’re right. Just need to require every employee to rise and form a union out of thin air or individually rise up against your owner placing a huge target on your back. 
 

And if I win this, my victory secures me the option of buying another high priced plan on the marketplace for which I wouldn’t qualify for in many cases all while dealing with the fact that I spat in the face of the owner who signs my paychecks. 
 

I don’t know if you are being deceitful or just out of touch because you’ve been in the military for so long but that’s not a viable solution for the majority of people in the real world, even if it has worked anecdotally. 
 

but yeah, everyone that doesn’t form a union at work or clash with their management over converting health insurance benefits into wages is just lazy. 
 

👍🏻

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

While all this debate on healthcare is going on during the Dem primary, what exactly is the GOP plan currently?  The last I checked Trump is suing courts to get rid of pre-existing condition coverage while he public says he is protecting it.   What else, besides completely overturning Obamacare has Trump or the GOP at large proposed?

 

For the people who don't want M4A, or a public option, or the M4A...who want it idea.........what is the GOP proposing as an alternative?  From where I stand, if the GOP actually decided to get serious about bringing affordable (and good quality) healthcare to the masses it would be a huge blow to a huge issue that tends to favor Dems regardless of the specific proposal.

the gop doesn’t want to touch healthcare. It’s a political loser. They let the dems and Obama take it on, and then have worked to sabotage it, so that they can use it as the political loser it is. They have no reason to provide anything so long as the current political state exists. 
 

but more to your point they won’t do anything. Trump will do his “we got the best plan in the works and you’ll see so after the election” nonsense and the people that support him will believe it. 
 

furthermore they don’t need to put anything forward right now. All they have to do is convince enough people Sanders’ plan will be a disaster (either on the whole for the country, or for individuals who have quality access to healthcare and will be forced to accept the changes. )

 

that’s the problem with staking your campaign on such a huge issue with such a radical change as the answer. The other side doesn’t have to come up with a competing idea - they just need to make your idea look really, really bad. 
 

And sanders will continue to get negative sound bites from interviews because no one seems interested in treating him fairly in the issue (not that he hasn’t taken some missteps but god damn I’m sick of listening to talking heads say they don’t understand something they are had an entire year to try to understand, they’re just not trying)

 

[goskins10]

24 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

You didn't say it was the only solution. It's just the main thing Bernie people point to when justifying programs, whether that's MFA, student loan forgiveness, free college, or 0-6 childcare. Bernie's MFA proposal is also more extreme than the universal healthcare of European countries, though he is successfully convincing people that he's just trying to give us the NHS or Canada's system. 

 

I disagree that's the thing most people point to. Most point to not paying insurance premiums and deductibles but instead paying that as taxes to cover health care. This will go a long way to cover the costs. So taxes may go up but the net change would be either neutral or less cost to the tax payer. I actually would not mind paying more in taxes, even net more if it meant we could provide people with health care. 

 

24 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

 

I want to know the actual financial impact. Responding to that by pointing at other expenditures as Bernie does is just deflection. No, i don't want to pay more in taxes to forgive people's student loans, it's a handout to people in the middle class and up. I am fine with paying more in taxes to provide healthcare for everyone in the country. Bernie's MFA program is not the only way to do that. How are people exaggerating the financial impact when there isn't a straight answer on what the actual financial impact will be? 

 

I disagree with Bernie on tuition. I am focusing specifically on health care. I am more than happy to discuss tuition but again I do not agree wit Bernie. One of the reasons he is not my top candidate. I do not think we need to forgive tuition. I borrowed almost $35,000 in student loans becasue I was married and went back later in life. I paid every penny back. I would be OK with some forgiveness maybe. But more of of a lengthening the repayment time/terms. But not full debt forgiveness. 

 

24 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

And the military scrutiny thing - come on. It is an incredibly popular opinion to say that the military budget is too high and that we shouldn't be Team America World Police. 

 

I have said why it's too high. But i also agree with a need to have a military. But 45 has already increased military spending some 35% I believe since taking office and we were over spending already. I do agree it's not the only place and should not be considered the holistic answer. It is part of a more complex equation. 

 

24 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Edit: I also want to make it clear - I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. There is nothing more important than getting the worst President in the history of the country out of office. But there are a lot of negatives about this movement.

 

I see Biden and Warren ad the worst 2 candidates for different reasons. Having said that, if either were to somehow win the nomination I would be team Warren/Biden immediately. Same goes for Pete, Amy, or whoever. My two will never make it. I have resigned myself to that. In the end getting 45 out of office is critical. 

 

I personally see more negatives in doing nothing or just going halfway. The issues being addressed are only going to get worse. 

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I see Biden and Warren ad the worst 2 candidates for different reasons. Having said that, if either were to somehow win the nomination I would be team Warren/Biden immediately. Same goes for Pete, Amy, or whoever. My two will never make it. I have resigned myself to that. In the end getting 45 out of office is critical. 

 

I personally see more negatives in doing nothing or just going halfway. The issues being addressed are only going to get worse. 

 

Out of curiosity, who's your top two?

[No Excuses]

Employer-based health insurance really is an all around garbage way of doing healthcare coverage and I have generally liked the coverage plans I have received in the past. Switching to a single-payer model over time is far more efficient, humane and cost-effective. I have been on the fence about M4A but it is really striking that prominent physicians and medical schools around the country keep finding it to be a far better alternative to the absolutely tragic healthcare system we currently have: 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext# 

 

Ultimately, I will bet that “do nothing” is a far worse alternative and will be an absolute loser in 2020. Which is why I’m sure Trump will put forward some half-baked idea because you simply cannot run a campaign on “nope, no solutions necessary” on an issue that millions of people are struggling with. 

[goskins10]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

how do we pay for it is not tripe, it’s not an excuse

 

its a question responsible adults ask before making a big change. Personally, business wise, or for supporting a political movement. 
 

there are ways to answer that question. You’re not using any of those ways. Instead you’re claiming the question is irrelevant; actually you seem to be claiming it’s a nefarious way of trying to shut down the conversation. 
 

you also tend to meet any resistance to your ideas with some comment about how the person you’re talking to must only want to do nothing. Which is not the case

 

im not saying you are one, but you’re coming across as a low information cult of personality voter. To fix that you need to cut out the nonsense and provide quality answers to questions like “how does this get paid for”

 

telling us that’s a dumb question isn’t having the impact you seem to think it should. 

 

I provided this long ago. I gave very specific answers and posted an article. It was met with the standard ,yes, whining and complaining - well what about... and what about.... some other extreme recounting of the potential cost with a very underestimated levels of money raised.  

 

I am not here to say it will not cost money - it will cost money. Taxes will go up! I believe based on what i have seen in terms of wealth taxes, elimination of premiums and deductibles, and cutting excess costs in programs like the military, we can get there. There are other details in the article I provided a page or so back. You and a few others reject that. That is fine. But to ignore it as if I have offered nothing then devolve into name calling is just a waste of time and not productive. I could respond in kind, but I will not. 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Employer-based health insurance really is an all around garbage way of doing healthcare coverage and I have generally liked the coverage plans I have received in the past. Switching to a single-payer model over time is far more efficient, humane and cost-effective. I have been on the fence about M4A but it is really striking that prominent physicians and medical schools around the country keep finding it to be a far better alternative to the absolutely tragic healthcare system we currently have: 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext# 

 

 

 

I think most of America is there in terms of current system is broken and something must be done (even pro Obama Dems will say that ACA was a step in the right direction, but it's not enough).  We have to decide what that change should be.

 

Quote

Ultimately, I will bet that “do nothing” is a far worse alternative and will be an absolute loser in 2020. Which is why I’m sure Trump will put forward some half-baked idea because you simply cannot run a campaign on “nope, no solutions necessary” on an issue that millions of people are struggling with.

 

He'll just lie.  "Dems blocked my bill that I wrote myself which all the best experts agreed would have made the US system the best, cheapest, and most efficient in the world.  And they had help from fake news media and deep state to keep it a secret and I have to keep it a secret for a little longer until we get Congress back in the hands of the GOP and I'm reelected or they'll waste more time on fake impeachment.  SAD!". 

[Riggo-toni]

37 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

While all this debate on healthcare is going on during the Dem primary, what exactly is the GOP plan currently?  

Obamacare WAS the GOP plan. A healthcare mandate was the centerpiece of every GOP healthcare proposal since the 90s as a way to stop freeloaders from showing up in the emergency room without insurance. The authors of the plan were from the Conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation, and a GOP governor, Mitt Romney, was lauded by Newt Gingrich for getting it passed in Massachusetts. When Obama proposed a public option, Mittens wrote an editorial in the WSJ proclaiming the superiority of his plan and daring Obama to adopt it...which then he did...at which point it became a socialist fiasco, and reputedly the worst thing to happen to black people since slavery.

The GOP can't come up with an alternative to the ACA, because that was their plan.

[goskins10]

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Out of curiosity, who's your top two?

 

Ok, finally a real question. Tulsi Gabbard first - she should drop as it's clear she is not getting the nomination. Then Andrew Yang who is already out - and should have. More should get out so the field can narrow to those who actually have a chance. 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I provided this long ago. I gave very specific answers and posted an article. 

 

Would you mind linking that post?  I must have missed it (Genuine request.  No sarcasm/snark.  And I won't necro respond to an old post, just wanted to read the discussion)

[NoCalMike]

2 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Obamacare WAS the GOP plan.

 

Yes. This has been common knowledge for a long time.  Totally agree.  What I am asking though is now that the GOP has decided they hate their own plan from the 90's.....what is their current proposal?

[HOF44]

I mean the first thing to me that seems obvious is healthcare cannot be a free market commodity.  Free markets respond to supply and demand.  Price moves based on this.  The demand to stay alive is inelastic and everyone would pay whatever they have to stay alive.  The price can be whatever a company would want to charge.  Healthcare needs to be a Co-op structure where enough is paid to fund it and fund research into health issues.  Until free market principles are removed companies can essentially write checks to themselves.  

[Destino]

4 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

The “we have money to kill people” cliche bores me.  Feels like virtue-signaling.

 

Some people need to be hustled up by our military and some people need to pay for their own lap-band surgery and Valium.

 

I’d much rather focus on wage-stagnation and separation of wealth.  Get that tightened up first and our health care problems will be much easier to tackle.

 

 

 

Reduce the number of exempt employees greatly so companies have to shell out more money, or actually hire an adequately sized staff.  Personally I’d like to see it limited to executives only.  If they want anyone else to die at their desks they should pay a hell of a lot more for it.  
Prohibit employer retaliation against employees for using vacation and sick days.  Mandate a minimum amount of vacation/sick days that must be offered.  Mandate that any unused days must be paid out at the end of the year.
Mandate longer maternity and paternity leave and prohibit discrimination or retaliation against anyone that might make, or makes, use of it.  
Make it harder, or at least more expensive, for companies to offshore jobs.  Even if it mean rewriting trade deals.

Raise the min wage.

Single payer health care.

 

This would likely be disastrous for share prices in the short term, but might force some money down from the mountain top. This would also require some concessions in the other direction as well, to avoid tanking the economy.  The point I’m making is that there are ideas to consider other than simply raising taxes.  It seems democrats get locked into that as the only option sometimes.  
 

But also, don’t be afraid to raise some taxes.  Sometimes that is the right option.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

13 minutes ago, bearrock said:

He'll just lie.  "Dems blocked my bill that I wrote myself which all the best experts agreed would have made the US system the best, cheapest, and most efficient in the world.  And they had help from fake news media and deep state to keep it a secret and I have to keep it a secret for a little longer until we get Congress back in the hands of the GOP and I'm reelected or they'll waste more time on fake impeachment.  SAD!". 

 

That's fine. Let him lie. He did that during the midterms too and was absolutely thrashed. 

 

So I welcome it. The people that have a significant voting interest in health care are tuned in enough to know that he's lying and those are the people that will help decide the election again. 

 

 

[tshile]

55 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I think most of America is there in terms of current system is broken and something must be done (even pro Obama Dems will say that ACA was a step in the right direction, but it's not enough).  We have to decide what that change should be.

The problem is ACA was supposed to be a step. But the GOP has blocked any ability to tweak it and make it better. (I realize you’re aware of this, just adding to the commentary)
 

which should really be a lesson in all of this for the dems. You can’t count on them to help make anything better. You have to do it yourself. I know some people love to declare the republicans a dying breed, but if you’re wrong you wind up where we are now: something that’s supposed to evolve to make things better, that doesn’t because the GOP finds more value is keeping it broken so they can beat the dems over the head with it every election cycle instead of making improvements to healthcare

 

as much as it sucks for the country as a whole it’s a great political strategy. They don’t have to fix it, they don’t own it (I mean reasonable people think they do but look where are in regards to reasonable people...), and they don’t have to offer a competing idea. 

the dems are in a bad spot. propose something radical and risk losing power because people are afraid of the radical solution -or- propose incremental improvements in the hope they will continue to retain power and make more improvements or if they lose power enough GOP will work with them (hah!)

 

the gop has reached a state where it must be voted out of power continually to force them to change. 
 

The real question: is nominating Sanders going to further that goal or hinder it?

 

 

[No Excuses]

48 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

I mean the first thing to me that seems obvious is healthcare cannot be a free market commodity.  Free markets respond to supply and demand.  Price moves based on this.  The demand to stay alive is inelastic and everyone would pay whatever they have to stay alive.  The price can be whatever a company would want to charge.  Healthcare needs to be a Co-op structure where enough is paid to fund it and fund research into health issues.  Until free market principles are removed companies can essentially write checks to themselves.  

 

I mean this is essentially the rationale to transition towards single-payer, which every other developed country on Earth has. Turning healthcare into a for-profit entity and then being bewildered about an absolutely crappy system is the most American thing in existence right now.

 

I honestly don't care what Bernie's proposal is because he will not get his wishlist. We waste so much god damn time in this country on policy analysis of Presidential campaigns when this isn't even the branch of government in charge of writing legislation. But single-payer does seem inevitable in this country at this point. That genie is out of the bottle, the overton window has moved and every failure of the existing system is one step closer to its demise. A Bernie election just accelerates us to this inevitability by at least 1-2 presidential election cycles.

[LadySkinsFan]

43 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Yes. This has been common knowledge for a long time.  Totally agree.  What I am asking though is now that the GOP has decided they hate their own plan from the 90's.....what is their current proposal?

 

 

The same as it's been the last bunch of years as outlined by Rep. Grayson (D) on the House floor. It hasn't changed at all. 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

The thing is if Bernie wins, it's not like M4A is going to get any kind of traction legislatively with the current makeup of the House/Senate.  Sanders is going to have to go to the American people and make the appeal that M4A was a large reason he won the election, and that the people must go to their local level elections and vote for candidates that would vote for it.   If that doesn't happen in 2022, not sure what the pathway for M4A would be.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

I honestly don't care what Bernie's proposal is because he will not get his wishlist. 

Will sanders allow for healthcare legislation that works towards fixing the existing system and doesn’t incorporate the fundamentals he’s been campaigning for since 2015?

 

is the anti-establishment pseudo democrat going to do that?

 

maybe he has said he would, I could have easily missed that. 
 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Will sanders allow for healthcare legislation that works towards fixing the existing system and doesn’t incorporate the fundamentals he’s been campaigning for since 2015?

 

is the anti-establishment pseudo democrat going to do that?

 

maybe he has said he would, I could have easily missed that. 
 

 

I doubt he has because it makes no sense to start compromising at this point. Sell your big idea and fight for it and then if you have to compromise. We will never get any improvement if we start out with a compromise because republicans will start with that compromised position and trash it and pull it further to the right, or current system with no changes. 

 

Go big and bring a bunch of support with you for massive change and see what happens. 

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I doubt he has because it makes no sense to start compromising at this point. Sell your big idea and fight for it and then if you have to compromise. We will never get any improvement if we start out with a compromise because republicans will start with that compromised position and trash it and pull it further to the right, or current system with no changes. 

 

Go big and bring a bunch of support with you for massive change and see what happens. 

I disagree. If your idea is this radical than showing willingness to compromise will help. Warren did as much - said she’d work with any legislation that made things better even if it wasn’t what she wanted. 
 

The sanders support at this point is: he won’t get his way so don’t worry about it, and he’s going to try to get his way we’ll see what happens

 

sorry. Those aren’t quality selling points to me. But, the sanders crowd seems to not want support from someone like me and they don’t think they need it, so maybe they’re right and my opinion doesn’t matter.