2nd set Democrat debates

[DrunkenSano]

I think that is why creating a public option will ultimately be the bridge people need, to go to a single payer system. It gives those that fear losing what they have a choice, a choice that will ultimately destroy the private insurance industry.

A public option would only be viable if the private insurance companies are heavily regulated so that they are not able to make a profit. Any profits made goes directly to lowering the cost of health insurance for those who signed on with that company. Employees of the insurance companies all make a comparable salary/wage but no such thing as bonuses that CEOs and high executives get. The focus needs always to be towards health and care, not how to increase the margin or how to make stock holders happier. Anything else and the public option will only sink health care for all because of pure greed.

 

[SlowSpyder]

GOP doesn't have opinions. They have altered and engineered realities they prop up and spin to their base. An opinion can be innocent. What they do is of pure malicious intent.

Liberal: Undocumented immigrants that are here because of their parents shouldn't be deported because guilt doesn't get handed down from one generation to the next!

Liberal: We need reparations because guilt from 170 years ago is handed down generations!

Tell me again how conservatives engineer an altered reality. L O L O L O L

 

[ivwshane]

I think incremental change is probably the most likely to succeed path.
Better helps people now, and doesn't suck up all the political capital like the ACA did. I want to see movement in other areas too.

I'm fine with expecting more, but I don't want to hold out for perfection when better is attainable, yet end up with nothing due to intransigence.

That's been the gop strategy on hc since at least 2009 and they've only been losing the debate and ability to craft policy (other than by legal challenges and undermining.)

Just so you know, the ACA was also incremental change.

 

[umbrella39]

Has no one talked about how simply beautiful Detroit's Fox Theater is? Especially after some restoration and new sign...

People shit on Detroit a lot, as well they should, and it's such a shame...

https://ornatetheatres.com/index.php/2018-detroit-conclave-preview/detroit-fox-theatre/ Nice Pics

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...we-fox-theatre-during-dem-debates/1874039001/

Visitors in awe of Fox Theatre during Dem debates

 

[ivwshane]

I am strongly attracted to this view myself, but I am only one person with views that can be wrong. I wonder if that is reaching high enough.

One thing I do feel is that no matter who the Democrats pick, the direction we go, and the President won't write that bill, if the democrats control the house and Senate, we will get better health care than anything the Republicans would pass.

I will not be making my choice on candidate based on their healthcare position. I just wish I knew how far we can reach and win.

Its funny how you've now taken the position I took in 2016 with Hillary. I explained, multiple times that incremental change was the way our government works and how things move forward. Everyone took that and used that as a reason not to vote for Hillary. They said, "no incremental change! We need big ideas!". Well we know how that turned out.

Well I'm glad you learned your lesson and realize that no matter what the actual policy is, the best way forward is through the Democrats, any Democrat.

The goal for 2020 shouldn't be to just beat trump but to also keep the house and gain the senate. Its time to let the pro America party show us the path to the future. If that happens, you can count on there being meaningful debate and figuring out what the best policy forward is.

 

[ivwshane]

A public option would only be viable if the private insurance companies are heavily regulated so that they are not able to make a profit. Any profits made goes directly to lowering the cost of health insurance for those who signed on with that company. Employees of the insurance companies all make a comparable salary/wage but no such thing as bonuses that CEOs and high executives get. The focus needs always to be towards health and care, not how to increase the margin or how to make stock holders happier. Anything else and the public option will only sink health care for all because of pure greed.

A public option doesn't use private insurance, therefore all the things you are concerned about become a moot issue. It is precisely because of the goal of private insurers to make a profit that they can't possibly compete against a public-not for profit-option.

That being said, private insurers may not be able to compete against a public option but they can defeat it. They will simply dump those that are unprofitable onto the public option and bankrupt the system. Hopefully Congress will be aware of this and make legislation that limits or prohibits this dumping.

Then again such actions could cause a backlash and lead to a public call for government ran health care where people aren't dumped because they aren't profitable.

 

[Bitek]

Just so you know, the ACA was also incremental change.

Yep and that should tell us how difficult Warren's or Bernie's plans would be, esp ending private insurance. Take that fight x100

I do think a quick setup of a public option could be far less work than the ACA (which changed many rules and regulations.) Just change the Medicare enrollment age, couple rules to make it workable, and stay away from too much tinkering.

The gop rewrote the tax code on an all nighter. It was a bit slapdash, but they did get it passed.

 

[ivwshane]

Yep and that should tell us how difficult Warren's or Bernie's plans would be, esp ending private insurance. Take that fight x100

I do think a quick setup of a public option could be far less work than the ACA (which changed many rules and regulations.) Just change the Medicare enrollment age, couple rules to make it workable, and stay away from too much tinkering.

The gop rewrote the tax code on an all nighter. It was a bit slapdash, but they did get it passed.

True but no plan will pass so long as Republicans control the senate. Control the senate and Democrats should pass whatever system is best for the country, if incremental changes are best then great, otherwise why not go big?

 

[glenn1]

Yep and that should tell us how difficult Warren's or Bernie's plans would be, esp ending private insurance. Take that fight x100

I do think a quick setup of a public option could be far less work than the ACA (which changed many rules and regulations.) Just change the Medicare enrollment age, couple rules to make it workable, and stay away from too much tinkering.

The gop rewrote the tax code on an all nighter. It was a bit slapdash, but they did get it passed.

I’m guessing most people with private healthcare would be OK with a “Medicare for those who want it” plan. Their concern is first and foremost not fucking things up for them, and provided it meets the “don’t fuck me over” threshold then they’re fine with expanding insurance coverage. But I’m guessing almost nobody with private health insurance is going to see Medicare as an upgrade for them.

If Democrats absolutely insist that private insurance must go (foolishly IMHO) Then you’re going to have to deal with the fact that most people see the private healthcare subsidy as an important part of their overall salary compensation. If you simply outlaw private insurance, all you’re going to be doing is giving a windfall to the corporations who will no longer have to pay their share of health insurance as part of their employees’ compensation. Now if you pass a law saying that anything employers used to pay towards health insurance must be paid to the employee as additional salary, then you may be in business.

 

[Bitek]

I’m guessing most people with private healthcare would be OK with a “Medicare for those who want it” plan. Their concern is first and foremost not fucking things up for them, and provided it meets the “don’t fuck me over” threshold then they’re fine with expanding insurance coverage. But I’m guessing almost nobody with private health insurance is going to see Medicare as an upgrade for them.

If Democrats absolutely insist that private insurance must go (foolishly IMHO) Then you’re going to have to deal with the fact that most people see the private healthcare subsidy as an important part of their overall salary compensation. If you simply outlaw private insurance, all you’re going to be doing is giving a windfall to the corporations who will no longer have to pay their share of health insurance as part of their employees’ compensation. Now if you pass a law saying that anything employers used to pay towards health insurance must be paid to the employee as additional salary, then you may be in business.

Yes, and I do think that last part is a real trick.
I have severe doubts my employer would just hand over the ~$20k they spend on my coverage, let alone if the govt plan ends up better.

Bernie and Liz are betting they would so I could cover their big tax bill. I doubt many have that much faith when it comes to pull the trigger.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not aware of anyone that actually uses their health insurance that are happy with it. By using it I'm referring to more than just basic check ups.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm not aware of anyone that actually uses their health insurance that are happy with it. By using it I'm referring to more than just basic check ups.

The hidden costs, what gets applied to deductibles and what doesnt, is this hospital in network, claims being rejected, hours on the phone trying to get a solid answer how much that event will cost, it's a good time in corporate run healthcare

 

[Bitek]

True but no plan will pass so long as Republicans control the senate. Control the senate and Democrats should pass whatever system is best for the country, if incremental changes are best then great, otherwise why not go big?

Sure, so to pass any plan it will need to be done under reconciliation, or abolishing the filibuster, which the institutionalists won't want to do.

Changing Medicare eligibility requirements and tweaking the Trump tax cuts? Plausible.
Have a big enough wave election maybe you'll even get a freaked out purple state R senator to go along like in 2009.

M4A? A huge, large scale reform of 1/6th of the economy that will create all sorts of losers on the process?

Then there's the months of committee meetings to grind out the ugly details.

Fuck. Enemies will be coming out of the woodwork to snipe that bloated, lumbering bill as it crawls thorough the legislative process.

Then getting voters to buy in what they're about to do won't screw them over or cost shit loads of money?

Doing that under reconcilation too? Ha!

Kiss 2022 and the rest of the D agenda goodbye.

 

[jackstar7]

No one wants their insurance. People who make that claim are dumbshits.

Slightly higher taxes for not having to pay for insurance? The "middle-class" especially comes out ahead in that deal.

 

[ivwshane]

Sure, so to pass any plan it will need to be done under reconciliation, or abolishing the filibuster, which the institutionalists won't want to do.

Changing Medicare eligibility requirements and tweaking the Trump tax cuts? Plausible.
Have a big enough wave election maybe you'll even get a freaked out purple state R senator to go along like in 2009.

M4A? A huge, large scale reform of 1/6th of the economy that will create all sorts of losers on the process?

Then there's the months of committee meetings to grind out the ugly details.

Fuck. Enemies will be coming out of the woodwork to snipe that bloated, lumbering bill as it crawls thorough the legislative process.

Then getting voters to buy in what they're about to do won't screw them over or cost shit loads of money?

Doing that under reconcilation too? Ha!

Kiss 2022 and the rest of the D agenda goodbye.

The simple fix would be to get a simple majority in the senate and to do away with the filibuster. Done.

 

[vi edit]

We're arguing on a tech forum about health insurance. I'm pretty certain that we aren't a demographic that is often worrying about what they will do if they break their foot and can't get to work tomorrow.

Access to health care is an entirely different demographic our little bubble here is out of touch with.

 

[ivwshane]

We're arguing on a tech forum about health insurance. I'm pretty certain that we aren't a demographic that is often worrying about what they will do if they break their foot and can't get to work tomorrow.

Access to health care is an entirely different demographic our little bubble here is out of touch with.

How do you figure? Because most of us have retired early and earn six figure incomes? /s

Shit! If the is any demographic that should be uber concerned with health care it would probably be the demographic who is dying at an above average rate, older white males, which I assume is what this board mostly consists of.

 

[Bitek]

We're arguing on a tech forum about health insurance. I'm pretty certain that we aren't a demographic that is often worrying about what they will do if they break their foot and can't get to work tomorrow.

Access to health care is an entirely different demographic our little bubble here is out of touch with.

I wouldn't say that. I have pretty good coverage, a good job and blessed with a good health, but I have family that haven't been so lucky.

My brother is a tradesmen, makes good money, but his small company can't provide healthcare. So he gets wherever coverage his wife's job offers, which has been all over the map as she's changed jobs.

He got hurt on the job, and has delt with the nightmare of workman's comp. Holy hell that sucks.

I'm not (and he's not) looking for a revolution, but some level of protection if you lose your job or don't have a job that can offer decent care. It just needs to work.

My family members who own small businesses would much rather focus on the business rather than trying to manage healthcare for their workers, but are they gunning for huge new taxes of a nationalised system? Nope.

It's better than it was pre-ACA, but there needs to be a better baseline plan everyone can pickup if the private options suck, but doesn't blow the world up in the process.

 

[Moonbeam]

Its funny how you've now taken the position I took in 2016 with Hillary. I explained, multiple times that incremental change was the way our government works and how things move forward. Everyone took that and used that as a reason not to vote for Hillary. They said, "no incremental change! We need big ideas!". Well we know how that turned out.

Well I'm glad you learned your lesson and realize that no matter what the actual policy is, the best way forward is through the Democrats, any Democrat.

The goal for 2020 shouldn't be to just beat trump but to also keep the house and gain the senate. Its time to let the pro America party show us the path to the future. If that happens, you can count on there being meaningful debate and figuring out what the best policy forward is.

Hehe. You make me wonder for the Nth time if I'm not some kind of psychic transmitter. This morning laying in bed, I read this entire thread up to the point I posted in it and chuckled to myself about how you'd found Sanders in the debate to be quite appealing. I thought to myself, well he's starting to see what I saw back when Hillary was way off message and campaigning unaware she was about to lose and how we should pick Sanders instead. But I didn't mention it because, well you know, that's just not how I am at least up till I read your post.

Anyway, you have got everything all balled up in your thinking and here's how:

i: Its funny how you've now taken the position I took in 2016 with Hillary.

M: I have not taken a position nor is the position I have questions about regarding the failure of message with Hillary Clinton. She ignored the suffering of working class whites, the deplorables, an failed to speak sympathetically to them. She was the candidate of the moneyed liberal class, the ones who take their campaign donations are way too beholden as a result. My opinion that Democrats were fools to go with her has not changed

i: I explained, multiple times that incremental change was the way our government works and how things move forward. Everyone took that and used that as a reason not to vote for Hillary. They said, "no incremental change! We need big ideas!". Well we know how that turned out.

M: Look what you are saying! You got your incrementalist for candidate and she lost. Who is at fault? The people who voted to insured the incrementalist won or the people who wouldn't vote for her. Maybe this time you will listen.

At any rate, I voted for Clinton, I didn't not vote. And when you say 'that's how our government works, that's how it has worked. There is nothing incremental about the damage Trump has done to the nation so your point has proven to be bull shit.

So why don't you let the big change people get a candidate this time so you can get all pissed off and not vote. The incrementalist lost. Let's see how a big change idealist does for a change. I for one am ready.

Meanwhile, I will wonder to myself just how much progressive change people can handle and how to present change in a way that will appeal enough to get a big changer elected. We've got big change now but it's all down hill.

Well I'm glad you learned your lesson and realize that no matter what the actual policy is, the best way forward is through the Democrats, any Democrat.

 

[ivwshane]

I wouldn't say that. I have pretty good coverage, a good job and blessed with a good health, but I have family that haven't been so lucky.

My brother is a tradesmen, makes good money, but his small company can't provide healthcare. So he gets wherever coverage his wife's job offers, which has been all over the map as she's changed jobs.

He got hurt on the job, and has delt with the nightmare of workman's comp. Holy hell that sucks.

I'm not (and he's not) looking for a revolution, but some level of protection if you lose your job or don't have a job that can offer decent care. It just needs to work.

My family members who own small businesses would much rather focus on the business rather than trying to manage healthcare for their workers, but are they gunning for huge new taxes of a nationalised system? Nope.

It's better than it was pre-ACA, but there needs to be a better baseline plan everyone can pickup if the private options suck, but doesn't blow the world up in the process.

Single payer health care would be a boon to small businesses as it would allow them to compete with larger corporations since, as you noted, small businesses often cannot afford to offer health care to their employees.
Even if there was a federal tax that was paid by everyone it would still amount to being a lot less than what businesses currently pay for health care costs.

I'd also like to highlight the ridiculousness of tying health care coverage to ones job. If your family and friends don't understand what's at stake or don't understand the issue then that's a failure on their part and even more so on yours.

 

[ivwshane]

Hehe. You make me wonder for the Nth time if I'm not some kind of psychic transmitter. This morning laying in bed, I read this entire thread up to the point I posted in it and chuckled to myself about how you'd found Sanders in the debate to be quite appealing. I thought to myself, well he's starting to see what I saw back when Hillary was way off message and campaigning unaware she was about to lose and how we should pick Sanders instead. But I didn't mention it because, well you know, that's just not how I am at least up till I read your post.

Anyway, you have got everything all balled up in your thinking and here's how:

i: Its funny how you've now taken the position I took in 2016 with Hillary.

M: I have not taken a position nor is the position I have questions about regarding the failure of message with Hillary Clinton. She ignored the suffering of working class whites, the deplorables, an failed to speak sympathetically to them. She was the candidate of the moneyed liberal class, the ones who take their campaign donations are way too beholden as a result. My opinion that Democrats were fools to go with her has not changed

i: I explained, multiple times that incremental change was the way our government works and how things move forward. Everyone took that and used that as a reason not to vote for Hillary. They said, "no incremental change! We need big ideas!". Well we know how that turned out.

M: Look what you are saying! You got your incrementalist for candidate and she lost. Who is at fault? The people who voted to insured the incrementalist won or the people who wouldn't vote for her. Maybe this time you will listen.

At any rate, I voted for Clinton, I didn't not vote. And when you say 'that's how our government works, that's how it has worked. There is nothing incremental about the damage Trump has done to the nation so your point has proven to be bull shit.

So why don't you let the big change people get a candidate this time so you can get all pissed off and not vote. The incrementalist lost. Let's see how a big change idealist does for a change. I for one am ready.

Meanwhile, I will wonder to myself just how much progressive change people can handle and how to present change in a way that will appeal enough to get a big changer elected. We've got big change now but it's all down hill.

Well I'm glad you learned your lesson and realize that no matter what the actual policy is, the best way forward is through the Democrats, any Democrat.

Once again you see only what you want to see.

I didn't find Bernie appealing, I thought he did well and I acknowledged the qualities in him that I liked JUST LIKE I ACKNOWLEDGED HIS QUALITIES AND HIS APPEAL IN 2016.

The difference between you and me is that if Democrats don't nominate the person I think they should nominate that I don't go around disparaging the only candidate that has a possibility of beating trump, like you did in 2016.


Just so you know, just in case you weren't aware, the Russians targeted and relied on people like you. Your repeated claims of Republican talking points that you used and continue to use makes that abundantly clear.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm surprised no one created a post.

Anyway, its starting now on CNN.

You can stream it on CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/

I don't usually watch cnn and now I know why... Dramatic much?

Round two starts now.

 

[ivwshane]

Deblasio out quick with an attack on Harris.

He's promising to tax the heck out of the rich!

 

[vi edit]

Inslee rocking the hip black frame glasses

 

[JEDIYoda]

Andrew Yang -- lolololol