Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Same Idiot Joker vs Batwoman or Batman

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The sad truth is the Democrats have lost the messaging war over the last 30 years (in general) on economics.  The GOP/Conservative media has gone non-stop at telling the masses that anything to the left of full blown Trickle Down-Reaganism-supply side-voodoo economics is Socialism.  When it comes to the economy Democrats seem to have little to no leeway before they are accused of being un-American.

 

It's as if this country was running a Socialist regime until Saint Reagan broke the chains of economic slavery.   

 

It is pretty telling that AOC 70% marginal tax rate idea is polling well with even have the GOP, yet you have so-called moderate Republicans like Megan McCain screaming like a chicken with it's head cutoff about how depressed she is to see "Socialism on the march."   It's quite ridiculous. 

 

Yup....and they are too dumb to make a simple message to fight this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal pot issue is a winner, but I would go further and implement some kind of system that requires local communities to get a piece of the pie.  How about allowing the people, the families, the communities that have been ravaged by the insane pot arrests & jail sentences an opportunity to become legitimate  business men which will likely would result in re-investment in those communities themselves.  My biggest fear for legal pot is that in a decade or so it will basically be run entirely by a handful of tobacco farmers that now grow weed too.   I read somewhere that Ohio is considering adding a stipulation with their legalizing that says only 2 companies can be the growers......sounds like big business interests are looking to poison another revenue stream.  Can't let that happen.  What is to stop a  business like Marlboro from adding nicotine to their crops in order to get customers physically addicted?

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

These are the middle of the road positions right now in the Democratic primary.  Too left is supporting a single payer healthcare system, rather than Medicare for all, supporting a federal jobs guarantee, rather than policies that support job and wage growth.

 

I thought Medicare for all was just a fancy name for single payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Medicare person, I also have a supplement insurance policy that pays what Medicare doesn't, for under $200 a month. Of course I paid into Medicare for years through taxes. Plus there are a number of plans that cover various care options at various prices, like the ACA.

 

If they can implement a medical plan where the profit is taken out of the healthcare equation, and a number of plans to choose from with varying premium rates, that would be a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

These are the middle of the road positions right now in the Democratic primary.  Too left is supporting a single payer healthcare system, rather than Medicare for all, supporting a federal jobs guarantee, rather than policies that support job and wage growth.

I don't think that is fair to say about the list when each topic is 3-4 words.  For example:

 

Gun control (because that is my favorite topic):  

 

----Middle of the road position:  close the gun show loophole; minimum age of 21 to purchase; mandatory cooling off period.

 

----Too far left:  Banning all semi-automatic weapons; no ability to carry outside of home, 10 round capacity limit.

 

both fall under the headline of "gun control"; that is why you need more specifics before characterizing any topic.

 

You can do that with all the listed topics.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I thought Medicare for all was just a fancy name for single payer.

 

I think there are multiple flavors of Medicare for All, which is likely something that will put some daylight between the various candidates.

 

My understanding is that many of the flavors of Medicare for All retain the private insurance system we have now, but if anyone can't get insurance through that system, they would automatically qualify for Medicare for All.  So you'd still have private insurance companies, but you are guaranteed something in terms of health insurance.  

 

Single payer eliminates private insurance companies.  Everyone gets insurance from the federal government (hence, single payer).  

 

Edit:  Here is a good explainer:

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-single-payer-democrats-sanders-jayapal

 

Quote

We spent the past month reading through the congressional plans to expand Medicare (and a few to expand Medicaid, too) as well as proposals at major think tanks that are influential in liberal policymaking. We talked to the legislators and congressional staff who wrote those plans, as well as the policy experts who have analyzed them.

 

These plans are the universe of ideas that Democrats will draw from as they flesh out their vision for the future of American health care. While the party doesn’t agree on one plan now, they do have plenty of options to choose from — and many decisions to make.

 

The eight plans fall into two categories. There are three that would eliminate private insurance and cover all Americans through the government. Then there are five that would allow all Americans to buy into government insurance (like Medicare or Medicaid) if they wanted to, or continue to buy private insurance.

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the effect on our economy of eliminating private insurance?  I mean telling those huge companies to kick rocks would have a negative economical impact at least in the short term, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm cool with that but I almost never hear people address the costs of healthcare itself.  This is a bigger concern than people having health insurance in my opinion.  Advocating for healthcare for all without a plan to address the cost of care is a negative to me.

 

Just pointing out, Obamacare contained several things designed to hold down the overall costs of health care.  

 

Things like mandating free, no-copay, no-deductible preventative tests.  It makes the insurance policy more expensive.  But encouraging people to get preventative screening allows problems to be treated for a lot less money than if they don;t know about them till later.  

 

And created a group to study whether there actually was evidence that certain treatments actually were cost effective in treating various conditions.  Yes, I can certainly see how something like that can seriously tick people off.  ("Sorry, the government won't pay for Grandpa to have bypass surgery after his third heart attack."  But, if the data actually shows that Grandpa won;t actually live any longer, if he has the surgery?)  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The legal pot issue is a winner, but I would go further and implement some kind of system that requires local communities to get a piece of the pie.  How about allowing the people, the families, the communities that have been ravaged by the insane pot arrests & jail sentences an opportunity to become legitimate  business men which will likely would result in re-investment in those communities themselves.  My biggest fear for legal pot is that in a decade or so it will basically be run entirely by a handful of tobacco farmers that now grow weed too.   I read somewhere that Ohio is considering adding a stipulation with their legalizing that says only 2 companies can be the growers......sounds like big business interests are looking to poison another revenue stream.  Can't let that happen.  What is to stop a  business like Marlboro from adding nicotine to their crops in order to get customers physically addicted?

 

I remember reading decades ago that Phillip Morris had plan in place for the moment cannabis is legalized. Definitely would be a smart business decision.

 

Imo the government has to be heavily involved in cannabis regulations when its legalized. Sales, growth, taxs/revenue, ect.

 

Basically there's  3 real choices as to who runs the drug operation in a country. The black market, corporations, or the government. A govt/small business model would be best imo. Much like micro breweries or small distilleries. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What would be the effect on our economy of eliminating private insurance?  I mean telling those huge companies to kick rocks would have a negative economical impact at least in the short term, right?

 

This is a point I haven't heard anyone touch and my Trump friend brought up.  That's a lot of jobs that are going to be either eliminated or have to be absorbed by the would be behemoth HHS agency.  I'd like to see plan for gradually inoleme thing Medicare for All, like start with replacing Tricare first the Medicaid, and government should get involved with retraining soon to be unemployed from this move. 

 

KH sounds like she's not interested in Medicare Part D, either, that would be a total wipe out of the industry.  What if someone is a hyoercintriact? Are all their visits free or do they start paying after a certain point?  That's basically a last hill private insurance could stand on.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Springfield said:

They need:

 

 

Legal pot

 

Here's an idea, for dealing with the current "it's legal at the state level, but not at the federal level" cluster **** that we've got now.  

 

Make pot legal at the federal level, but states can choose to make it legal/illegal at the state level.  (Or local level, if the state chooses to grant that authority.)  

 

The Feds will still have the authority to prosecute interstate pot dealing.  (Unless it's between two pot-legal states.)  

 

(Or a different way of getting the same result:  Put it in the budget that the Feds will have zero budget to enforce pot laws within any state which chooses to pass "legal pot" laws.)  

 

Watch the "small government/state's rights" people try to oppose that one.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single payer is really the best solution.  How long it takes to get there tho will remain to be seen. 10 years.... 100....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What would be the effect on our economy of eliminating private insurance?  I mean telling those huge companies to kick rocks would have a negative economical impact at least in the short term, right?

 

Well, let's face it, there's a ton of people employed in a whole bunch of clerical positions with the current mishmash system.  Both on the health provider side and on the insurance company side.  

 

You can argue that all of those paperwork pushers are an evil drain of our healthcare dollars who don't deliver any healthcare at all.  But they are also jobs which employ people.  

 

Eliminate hundreds of private insurance companies, and replace them with one big one, and no doubt the one big one will absorb some of those currently-employed  leeches, but not all of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, Obamacare contained several things designed to hold down the overall costs of health care.  

 

I was more eyeballing controlling things like big-pharma and such.  Or the $12 box of kleenex.  The actual costs of things provided at the time, not ways to prevent people from needing care (which I am for, just not talking about that now).

 

Didn't Obamacare cap the amount of profit a health insurance company can make?  Maybe something like that for the rest of the health-care related providers.

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

ou can argue that all of those paperwork pushers are an evil drain

I wasn't arguing either side.  I honestly just had the question pop into my head when I posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What would be the effect on our economy of eliminating private insurance?  I mean telling those huge companies to kick rocks would have a negative economical impact at least in the short term, right?

 

I’ve thought about that, and I suppose it really depends if it’s run publicly or privately.  I think that if huge insurance companies are suddenly dissolved because the government is now providing health care then there will be lots of jobless people.  That said, there will be a large number of people needed to implement and oversee government insurance.  I doubt it’s a zero sum transaction though, and net jobs will probably be lost.

 

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider single payer, just because people will lose their jobs.  That would be like propping up travel agencies or cassette tape makers or coal industries.  Also, why this probably never happens though.  Too many rich people stand to lose too much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, big for me is getting employers out of the healthcare insurance industry. That way, it frees companies from choosing insurance based on the company profits and employees from restrictions placed on their healthcare by their employers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Also, big for me is getting employers out of the healthcare insurance industry. That way, it frees companies from choosing insurance based on the company profits and employees from restrictions placed on their healthcare by their employers.

 

I would say that a much bigger reason for separating employment from health insurance is that it prevents health insurance being used as a threat, to force employees to accept less at the negotiating table.  Get rid of the whole "You have to accept the 0.5% pay raise your employer is offering, or else you'll lose your health insurance" coercion.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I find kinda depressing? I come here, the free-for-all jabber zone on a football message board for a team that has to wonder how in the **** anyone is still onboard and I hear more give-n-take discussion, views tossed out and chewed by others, interesting ideas spun, dippy ideas savaged, but overall far more interactive rational debate than I hear on top end news programming. For all the parting-shot "enjoy your lefty bubble" comments we've seen from drivebys, TGB for example is here daily, holding his position that has to be considered right-of-center, making his case, offering realistic counterpoints, listening to others and engaging vigorously in the overall debate. I dare ya to show me one serious panel discussion on the tube that even begins to compare.

 

Why does it have to be so mother****ing hard for people to just sit down and TALK!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schultz seems to come from the camp that is perfectly fine going along with the "center" of the aisle having been pulled to the right over the last 30 years because for the most part it protects his own financial interests.  I haven't heard anything from him so far that really makes him a "life long democrat"  

 

The candidate(s) I will support in the primary are the ones, when it comes to economics, make the point that what is considered the "center" has been moved.  It's been a slow coup being waged on the lower & middle class folks regardless of their opinion on abortion or immigration.  

 

Not liking Trump doesn't make you a Democrat. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What would be the effect on our economy of eliminating private insurance?  I mean telling those huge companies to kick rocks would have a negative economical impact at least in the short term, right?

 

This is the million dollar question.  Theoretically, if you eliminate those huge companies, you are also eliminating the profit motive.  That is, those companies exist not to provide healthcare, but to make money.  Charging more than they actually spend for healthcare is how they make that money.  Note that the CEO's of healthcare companies make a metric **** ton of money.  

 

On the other hand, huge government behemoths rarely do anything well and efficiently.  

 

This is sort of why I am in favor of Medicare for All as an option.  I like the idea of a government entity acting as both a backstop for people that can't otherwise get private insurance, and also a competitor for those private companies.  If the government can do it better and cheaper, then those other companies can go ahead and die.  If those companies can do it better and cheaper, then there is a reason for them to exist.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

You know what I find kinda depressing? I come here, the free-for-all jabber zone on a football message board for a team that has to wonder how in the **** anyone is still onboard and I hear more give-n-take discussion, views tossed out and chewed by others, interesting ideas spun, dippy ideas savaged, but overall far more interactive rational debate than I hear on top end news programming. For all the parting-shot "enjoy your lefty bubble" comments we've seen from drivebys, TGB for example is here daily, holding his position that has to be considered right-of-center, making his case, offering realistic counterpoints, listening to others and engaging vigorously in the overall debate. I dare ya to show me one serious panel discussion on the tube that even begins to compare.

 

Why does it have to be so mother****ing hard for people to just sit down and TALK!

 

We don't care about ratings in this thread. That's all those talking head panels normally care about. How can they sell their next book and make some money. Same with the politicians on the talking panels. Many are there with their next election in the back of their mind or their future lobbying job on their mind. 

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Schultz seems to come from the camp that is perfectly fine going along with the "center" of the aisle having been pulled to the right over the last 30 years because for the most part it protects his own financial interests.  I haven't heard anything from him so far that really makes him a "life long democrat"  

 

The candidate(s) I will support in the primary are the ones, when it comes to economics, make the point that what is considered the "center" has been moved.  It's been a slow coup being waged on the lower & middle class folks regardless of their opinion on abortion or immigration.  

 

Not liking Trump doesn't make you a Democrat. 

 

I think he claims to be a life long Democrat cause it helps him in Seattle. The more he talks, the less he helps himself. A billionaire businessman too busy to vote but now can solve our problems. Gee, haven't seen that before. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

This is the million dollar question.  Theoretically, if you eliminate those huge companies, you are also eliminating the profit motive.  That is, those companies exist not to provide healthcare, but to make money.  Charging more than they actually spend for healthcare is how they make that money.  Note that the CEO's of healthcare companies make a metric **** ton of money.  

 

On the other hand, huge government behemoths rarely do anything well and efficiently.  

 

I'm pretty sure that Medicare operates on a much lower overhead% than the private insurance industry does, though.  Like, less than half.  Might be an exception to that oft-stated bit of "everybody knows".  

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Springfield said:

All this concern for a candidate who is “too far left” is unfounded.  Stop being afraid of Trump and attack the mother****er.  Hillary, a moderate, already lost to Trump.  You put some middle of the road putz up there against him and the Democrats are gonna lose again.

 

Motivate the people who stayed home in Trump/Clinton to come out and vote.  Don’t try to win back those losers who support a Russian puppet.  Stop being reactive, and start being proactive.

 

 

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

My position is that this election is not about convincing shaky Republicans to not vote Republican, it's about convincing everyone else to turn out to vote against someone who is so clearly unfit for the job and an actual threat to America's well being and, rather, to vote for someone that is both qualified and not a monster. 

 

This is what they should focus on and this is actually what resulted in the massive midterm victory for Dems. You're not going to convince republicans, even never trumpers to vote Dem. Forget them. Obama brought out voters. The progressive policies, the anti-trump sentiment and the grassroots work efforts brought out voters in the midterms. that's the plan. 

 

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

Medicare for all

Tax on the rich

Climate change initiatives

Gun control

Legal pot

 

These are all popular winners except for gun control. It would impact messaging too much imo and not worth running with it on the platform. 

 

Medicare for all

70% tax rate on the rich as well as estate/wealth tax

climate change/green new deal

legalize marijuana

 

Those are winners. Get those implemented and watch the quality of life and happiness of americans improve. That makes passing something like gun control easier down the road. Also, passing these especially medicare for all and mj is a red ribbon gold star sticker that stays attached to the Dem party forever. They can't go back and take that away from people, it would be political suicide and it's something that would stay with Dems throughout history much like civil rights has. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we switched to Medicare for all, the current gov't infrastructure is not likely going to be able to handle everyone's healthcare, I assume a lot of the employees of health insurance companies would apply for the clerical and administration jobs for Medicare. I am sure the % of workers needed for it would be less than all the current employees of insurance companies, but I am not of the opinion Medicare for All eliminates insurance entirely, I think it mostly eliminates primary care, however I read an article that in some European countries, private insurance still thrives despite national healthcare.  Those insurance companies just offer plans for different things, like perks, upgrades, etc etc....could be as simple as upgraded meals for hospital stays, or a private room etc etc.....there is an entirely different avenue they can explore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.