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

[Mr. Sinister]

The bot thing would be hilarious if there werent so many stupid people living in the country

[Larry]

Deleted. 

[DogofWar1]

2 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Warren-Castro incoming.

[88Comrade2000]

After the first half of the debates, I still haven't changed my mind; Trump wins reelecton.  

 

The GOP fear machine will work again, giving Trump his narrow electoral victory.

 

You get from last night from most candidates and you will tonight from most candidates other than Biden; the Dems want major change.  Not incremental change. They want the big change now.   That's fine.  Thing is can the Dem nominee overcome the GOP/Trump fear machine and convince a majority that the change is good for everyone.

I don't think so.  Yes, the under 45 voters will be all for it.  The over 45 voters won't be.  They don't want major change.  I mean they voted for Trump because he promised them a return to the past.  A false promise that in reality can not come true.  Still, that's what they voted for.   I will continue to believe this:  If the older, more moderate Dem voters feels the Dems are going to far to the left; they will not vote for the 2020 nominee.  I don't believe we are at the point where the younger voters can carry the day.  The younger voters who enthusiastically will embrace Bernie or Lizzie or even Jay Inslee will be offset by the older voters who can't vote for them. They will either stay home or vote non-Dem or maybe even for the Cheeto.

 

I hope I am dead wrong, bit I believe more in the strength of the GOP fear machine than the Dems being able to convince their policies are what this country needs.

 

I think Lizzie will be the nominee but how is she going to explain, getting rid of private insurance completely. My guess, if she can pass it; it would take effect probably within 1 to 3 years of passage.  That's a major change.  Trump and the GOP will scaring everyone.  She will have to overcome that.

 

 

As for tonight,  I think Joe stumbles badly.  Bernie tears him to shreads.  Joe will show he's out of touch with today's Dems.  Maybe Kamala or Pete can benefit. I doubt the others will do much.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

One of the real tragedies of the Trump presidency is that we are living in an extremely data-rich environment. Like we have so much data being collected about everything from health to transportation, we literally don't have enough people who can do big data analytics to make sense of it. The Obama admin had started laying the foundations of a data-driven federal government but that's largely been ignored under the buffoon currently in charge.

 

The federal government right now REALLY stands to benefit from a President who understands the value of data and hiring data scientists at federal agencies to make sense of it. Instead of a bunch of brainless goons with no qualifications except their ability to kiss the President's ass, I want the next POTUS to hire experts in their respective fields who will promote policies driven by sound data-analysis.

 

That is why I am Yang and Mayor Pete curious. I think they are both much more likely to rely on expertise and modern approaches to governance than Biden and Sanders. We need a fresh perspective on governance and neither of these two provide it. A fundamental restructuring of the federal agencies to modernize is possible without ever having to rely on Mitch McConnel and the broken legislative branch.

 

I think you are projecting.

 

Yang and Buttigieg both seem to be people that make up their minds on ideas and then go forward without worrying too much about the details and working them out.

 

I think they like the big idea and don't worry about the details.

 

Yang has a bad idea what the right is calling "welfare" and therefore how much we spend on welfare and how so how much money he'd need to fund a UBI.  Buttigeg instituted his home policy with its name/slogan (forget what it was exactly) without worrying about the details and to my knowledge without a lot of data behind it.

 

I'll also point out that big data doesn't generally support big ideas well because there just isn't much data related to massive changes in government.

 

Any big or new idea or big change isn't going to be well supported by data because of the novelty of it.  Existing data can't tell you much about things that haven't been done or haven't been done by very many people.

 

You seem to be advocating for two different ideas:

 

1.  Embracing bold new ideas.

 

2.  Using existing data to improve our situation.

 

Geoengineering is the first (it is a bold idea, but there's very little data to long term results of just doing it much less the global governance of it).   In general, most big ideas are wrong and when they are pursued on a societal level, they have huge negative consequences and costs.

 

The 2nd will be more of piecemeal activity.  Look at the data, adjust, collect more data, adjust, etc.

 

(**EDIT**

 

The Buttigeg program was called a 1,000 homes in 1,000 days.  I'm extremely skeptical that any big data analysis supported massively altering the housing situation in a town the size of South Bend that much that quickly.  And then not surprisingly, there were unexpected consequences, they had to make changes, and people still aren't happy with the out come.)

[Zguy28]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Is the GOP really going to argue that everything not right-wing is "socialist" is that where their arguments are headed on every issue?

Truman used to say the same thing. It ebbs and flows.

[No Excuses]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You seem to be advocating for two different ideas:

 

1.  Embracing bold new ideas.

 

2.  Using existing data to improve our situation.

 

I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. There is a lot of room to modernize the data collection and analytic capabilities of the federal government. There is also a lot of room for the federal government to take on a greater role in pushing bold ideas forward such as geoengineering.

 

For both Mayor Pete or Andrew Yang, there is reason to believe that both of them are likely to be open to some modernizing and bold approaches to governance.

 

For Mayor Pete, he's participated in the Mayor Innovation Project and worked on incorporating data-driven policies in his governance already: https://www.mayorsinnovation.org/images/uploads/pdf/Buttigieg.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-revived-south-bend-with-tech-up-next-america/

 

And for Andrew Yang, he is at least discussing fairly bold approaches on issues like automation (I think he is wrong here) and climate change (I think he is right here). I'm not sure where he stands on incorporating data-driven policy approaches but considering his background in tech, I would assume that he is probably more open to such ideas.

[Mooka]

4 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Kamala Harris seems like a candidate that could usurp Biden's moderate support.  She is tough, could wallop Trump in a debate pretty easily, and I think has the right presence.  

 

Kamala has it all on paper but she's waaaaay behind when you put her in front of a camera or put a mic in her face.

 

Winning votes in CA where people are familiar with you isn't the same as running a national election. 

 

She needs to start kissing babies fast.

 

6 hours ago, No Excuses said:

The Dems aren’t facing a juggernaut. They’re going up against the weakest incumbent in decades, who is so bad at his job, that a decent economy isn’t even helping his approval numbers, nor did it help his party in midterms.

 

The juggernaught isn't Trump; guy's a giant turd, the juggernaught is the rightwing media/social platforms he stands atop of.

 

And he can point/pull at almost anything and it's all reinforced down to your average American.

 

Dems need a strong message, now. They need to flood your news/social media with it. They need troll armies laughing at Republicans 24/7. And they need to do this for the next couple decades.

 

[PeterMP]

50 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. There is a lot of room to modernize the data collection and analytic capabilities of the federal government. There is also a lot of room for the federal government to take on a greater role in pushing bold ideas forward such as geoengineering.

 

For both Mayor Pete or Andrew Yang, there is reason to believe that both of them are likely to be open to some modernizing and bold approaches to governance.

 

For Mayor Pete, he's participated in the Mayor Innovation Project and worked on incorporating data-driven policies in his governance already: https://www.mayorsinnovation.org/images/uploads/pdf/Buttigieg.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-revived-south-bend-with-tech-up-next-america/

 

And for Andrew Yang, he is at least discussing fairly bold approaches on issues like automation (I think he is wrong here) and climate change (I think he is right here). I'm not sure where he stands on incorporating data-driven policy approaches but considering his background in tech, I would assume that he is probably more open to such ideas.

 

He's worked for tech and he realized that tech could be an important part of turning around the economy there and so he pushes for tech development.

 

That isn't using data to make decisions.

 

Except, there isn't really any data that geoengineering is a better solution to climate change than any other.  It is a (controversial) opinion.  If you are using the federal government to push ideas that are supported by data, then you aren't really running a government based on or guided by data.

 

If I'm running a data driven government, why should I spend government resources pushing geoengineering?

 

The answer to the question is that there is no data supporting that idea.

 

And that's the case for most big and new ideas.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I haven't dove too much into each Dems policy positions yet because it is so early but Warren raising her hand for getting rid of private health insurance is a big worry spot for me.  One, I think it's wrong.  And how the hell does she even propose doing it?  

[Renegade7]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

I haven't dove too much into each Dems policy positions yet because it is so early but Warren raising her hand for getting rid of private health insurance is a big worry spot for me.  One, I think it's wrong.  And how the hell does she even propose doing it?  

 

My hope is the plan is to adjust medicare to point incorporates the benefits of medicare advantage so that its a plan that goes above and beyond what's seen in most every health plan.  You can't get rid of private insurance and it not be better them what people have, I agree that that's asking for it.

[NoCalMike]

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance.  Most people probably don't know the details of their plan or haven't had to use their insurance beyond paying co-pays for dr visits or very minor incidents.  Where private health insurance runs a'foul is when you actually have something major happen and the insurance companies decide it's time to nickel & dime, or go through you files to look for some kind of technicality to justify throwing you off your plan completely and there is nothing you can do it about it.  

 

Like one or more of the candidates said last night, a good portion of people who claim medical-related bankruptcy actually did have private insurance, and it either didn't cover them adequately or they were denied the necessary treatment.  

[Burgold]

29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

My hope is the plan is to adjust medicare to point incorporates the benefits of medicare advantage so that its a plan that goes above and beyond what's seen in most every health plan.  You can't get rid of private insurance and it not be better them what people have, I agree that that's asking for it.

I think that's got to be part of it. In truth, I haven't read up on her plan either, but she doesn't seem like a super-idealist or pie in the sky kind of politician. She's a super-wonk. So, if she says she wants to do something I bet she has a blueprint.

Mind you, I suspect it's a blueprint that has no chance of passing in its pure state, but if she aims for the moon (absolute universal coverage) and winds up with Medicare for all with a public option... we'll still be in an improved state... and both sides could potentially claim a victory.

 

In terms of generating excitement though, I do think you have to present a vision and not be an incrementalist even if the pragmatist in you knows that incremental change is the most likely outcome. In any case, every candidate over-promises. Warren may be doing that here, but she also lays out specifics as to how her over-promises could be achieved and what their outcome might look like.

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance.  Most people probably don't know the details of their plan or haven't had to use their insurance beyond paying co-pays for dr visits or very minor incidents. 

I'm with you. Most people I know hate their insurance or the insurance con game. They just accept it as a necessary evil. They surely don't want to give up their insurance because they know how quickly they can go bankrupt without it, but in terms of "liking" it? 

 

Nah.

[Bozo the kKklown]

40 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I haven't dove too much into each Dems policy positions yet because it is so early but Warren raising her hand for getting rid of private health insurance is a big worry spot for me.  One, I think it's wrong.  And how the hell does she even propose doing it?  

Do you get private insurance?

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

If I'm running a data driven government, why should I spend government resources pushing geoengineering?

 

I mean why does the government support research endeavors in any nascent technology that seems promising or could deliver entirely new tech capabilities? I don't really get what you are arguing here. A government can be data driven and also forward thinking and bold in terms of supporting early research and growth of entirely new forms of technological capabilities. This is already the case with DARPA and ARPA-E.

[Renegade7]

MFA would have to be phased in, a siesmic shift like that cannot be taken lightly.  

 

Could be something like:

 

1.  Move up medicare to match what's missing in medicare advantage

 

2. Start negotiating medical prices down to levels between Canada and UK

 

3. Make it illegal to deny Medicare or Medicaid

 

4. Convert all Medicaid recipients to Medicare

 

5. Convert all tricare recipients to medicare

 

6.  Convert all remaining government employees at fed and state level to medicare

 

7. Make remaining US citizens eligible to apply for medicare like was proposed with Medicaid for All (basically able to apply regardless of income level)

 

8. Count down to elimination of private insurance giving plenty of time for everyone remaining to get in the medicare system, which could take years.

 

I don't see it realistic to get this done in one term, 8-10 years seems reasonable to prevent too much of a shock to the economy considering you are wiping out an entire industry (private health insurance) to so it.  

 

There better be a good answer for all those people that will essentially be looming for work elsewhere.  It's like intentionally shrinking the coal industry via policy, you better have a policy for what to do with people that work in that industry and its an absolute mess because we really didn't.

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Good steps Renegade7. We can't forget all the admin people employed by private insurance companies. They need to find new jobs.

[tshile]

43 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance. 

 

My insurance is awesome and I like it. So I’m not really thrilled about this idea. At all. 

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, Mooka said:

The juggernaught isn't Trump; guy's a giant turd, the juggernaught is the rightwing media/social platforms he stands atop of.

 

This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen in awhile.  Which is somewhat strange because it includes the word "turd," but here we are. 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

My insurance is awesome and I like it. So I’m not really thrilled about this idea. At all. 

 

Even if they make Medicare as good or better?

[PleaseBlitz]

51 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

I'm not so sure about this.  I think (as not an economist) that the public option will "self-select" (1) the people that just want to pay the least and (2) the people who are the most expensive to insure (because private healthcare companies will nudge them out).  The other people will be people that want access to the best possible healthcare and are able and willing to pay for it.  Those people tend to be more affluent and middle aged.  Except for costs associated with pregnancy, the vast majority of healthcare costs are associated with people outside of that group (i.e., old (because that's when expensive life-ending diseases tend to hit) and poor (because they tend to live harder, less healthy lives)).  

[TheGreatBuzz]

48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Do you get private insurance?

 

 

I'm military.  Not a system you want to copy.

[PeterMP]

54 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance.  Most people probably don't know the details of their plan or haven't had to use their insurance beyond paying co-pays for dr visits or very minor incidents.  Where private health insurance runs a'foul is when you actually have something major happen and the insurance companies decide it's time to nickel & dime, or go through you files to look for some kind of technicality to justify throwing you off your plan completely and there is nothing you can do it about it.  

 

Like one or more of the candidates said last night, a good portion of people who claim medical-related bankruptcy actually did have private insurance, and it either didn't cover them adequately or they were denied the necessary treatment.  

 

Lots of countries with good universal healthcare systems also have supplemental private insurance, including Canada, England, France, and Australia.

 

Other than the likes of Cuba, I don't know of a country that doesn't have private system that can be used to supplement the public system.

 

There's no reason the same wouldn't happen here, unless the government actually abolishes private health insurance.

 

 

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Even if they make Medicare as good or better?

😂

 

thats a good one

[NoCalMike]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There's no reason the same wouldn't happen here, unless the government actually abolishes private health insurance.

 

 

 

You are right, and I forgot to add that in as a clarification on my post.  There is still room for private health insurance, just not in the way it is used now.  Buying supplemental plans, or maybe even buying perks to add on to your standard health plan.  Absolutely.  I was talking more primary/first point of contact healthcare.