Fundraising for 2019/2020: 12 Months Renewed - We are good until October 2020. Paypal Donation Link Here

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34609
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:49 pm

I didn't say his support is wobbly, I said HE is wobbly. I don't believe he has the stamina or energy to go all the way. He always looks tired and a little bit lost...and it just keeps getting more grueling from here on out.

In terms of his support, fundraising is a good leading indicator, and he's got problems there. Bear in mind that his chief rivals eschewed big donors and are beating him with grassroots, small donations, whereas Joe has been regularly hitting the fat-cat dinner circuit. That might not mean that the grassroots don't like him; maybe he just doesn't know how to collect money from youngsters on their record players. Granted, money isn't everything. But it's a lot.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21651
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:21 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:56 pm
To a first approximation, though, Biden’s numbers have been quite steady. Other than a post-announcement bounce, when he briefly surged to near 40 percent, he’s been somewhere between 26 percent and 32 percent in the RCP average for literally the entire campaign:
Enlarge Image
I'm not a data guy, but it looks to me like that graph tells a story of two races: Biden vs Sanders and Warren vs Harris, although of course they overlap.

Biden rises at Sanders' expense when he announces, and then Warren's rise surpasses both of them but really sinks Harris almost perfectly proportionately.

Everyone else is just jockeying up and down for 5th or 6th place.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18009
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:31 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:56 pm

At this point I think it's pretty clear that Biden is the moderate wing candidate unless and until he completely implodes. Klobuchar seems to be getting a lot of attention post-debate, so we'll see if she makes any gains (which would likely come at Biden's expense), but I'd be shocked if Biden wasn't the clear moderate wing candidate at least through the early primary states.
Buttigieg might be an alternative if Biden's support collapses (I would describe him as between the moderate and progressive wings, personally). However, his support looks a lot more like Warren's than it does Biden's: White, college educated, progressive, etc.


User avatar
Apollo
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Gardendale, AL

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Apollo » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm

As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage

Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:11 am

Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
It's still a year before Dem's even begin voting. Chances are whoever is on top today will be wiped out and not even mentioned come primary time. We might even have ol Hillary run again. Future is uncertain and all that jazz.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14541
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by pr0ner » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:15 am

Drazzil wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:11 am
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
It's still a year before Dem's even begin voting. Chances are whoever is on top today will be wiped out and not even mentioned come primary time. We might even have ol Hillary run again. Future is uncertain and all that jazz.
A year? Try three and a half months.
Hodor.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18009
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:44 am


Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:19 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:15 am
Drazzil wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:11 am
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
It's still a year before Dem's even begin voting. Chances are whoever is on top today will be wiped out and not even mentioned come primary time. We might even have ol Hillary run again. Future is uncertain and all that jazz.
A year? Try three and a half months.
Wut?
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34609
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:22 pm

Drazzil wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:19 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:15 am
Drazzil wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:11 am
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
It's still a year before Dem's even begin voting. Chances are whoever is on top today will be wiped out and not even mentioned come primary time. We might even have ol Hillary run again. Future is uncertain and all that jazz.
A year? Try three and a half months.
Wut?
The NH primary is in early Feb.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19277
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Pyperkub » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:51 pm

Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
Warren is not corrupt, not a liar and not going to abandon our allies. She also has actual morals. Her economic policy *may* not work (but to me, markets are much more solid with good refs, and while Health Care for all will be costly, it may not be as costly as our current system keeps becoming, and if you look at employment trends, employer sponsored health care is rooted in a 1950's economy and is extremely ill-equipped for the 21st Century). Additionally, it is far less likely to bankrupt us than Trump (and Bush) economic policies - at worst, it is likely to be business as usual with regards to the deficit, and will do much better at keeping the worst of the next recession at bay. Additionally, if you care *at all* about climate change and the future we are leaving to the generations to come, there is only one choice.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14541
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by pr0ner » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:53 pm

Kraken wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:22 pm
Drazzil wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:19 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:15 am
Drazzil wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:11 am
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
It's still a year before Dem's even begin voting. Chances are whoever is on top today will be wiped out and not even mentioned come primary time. We might even have ol Hillary run again. Future is uncertain and all that jazz.
A year? Try three and a half months.
Wut?
The NH primary is in early Feb.
And Iowa's caucuses are on February 3.
Hodor.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40269
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:18 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:53 pm
And Iowa's caucuses are on February 3.
Is it too early for polls?
President Trump holds a slim lead in Iowa over former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in hypothetical match-ups, according to a new poll.

The survey by Emerson College found that 51 percent of registered voters said they would choose Trump over Biden. Respondents favored Trump by the same 51 percent-49 percent margin in a match-up against Warren.
Really Iowa? Really?

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14541
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by pr0ner » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:21 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:18 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:53 pm
And Iowa's caucuses are on February 3.
Is it too early for polls?
President Trump holds a slim lead in Iowa over former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in hypothetical match-ups, according to a new poll.

The survey by Emerson College found that 51 percent of registered voters said they would choose Trump over Biden. Respondents favored Trump by the same 51 percent-49 percent margin in a match-up against Warren.
Really Iowa? Really?
Trump won Iowa handily in 2016, so that's an improvement for the Democratic side.
Hodor.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40269
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:24 pm

Generally then I'm just astounded he's a viable polling candidate anywhere. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but here we are.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18009
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:27 pm

It's 13 months until the election, and polls at this point are, on average, about 11% off from the results, so keep that in mind.

Still, considering that Trump's approval in Iowa is -14, it's pretty disappointing.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24622
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by stessier » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:44 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:24 pm
Generally then I'm just astounded he's a viable polling candidate anywhere. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but here we are.
You really don't want to come to the South.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34609
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:45 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:21 pm
Smoove_B wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:18 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:53 pm
And Iowa's caucuses are on February 3.
Is it too early for polls?
President Trump holds a slim lead in Iowa over former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in hypothetical match-ups, according to a new poll.

The survey by Emerson College found that 51 percent of registered voters said they would choose Trump over Biden. Respondents favored Trump by the same 51 percent-49 percent margin in a match-up against Warren.
Really Iowa? Really?
Trump won Iowa handily in 2016, so that's an improvement for the Democratic side.
Since neither Biden nor Warren are actually the nominee yet, with the full force of their party behind them, that seems fairly good to me. Each is more likely to go up than down once focused campaigning can start.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34609
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:51 pm
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
Warren is not corrupt, not a liar and not going to abandon our allies. She also has actual morals. Her economic policy *may* not work (but to me, markets are much more solid with good refs, and while Health Care for all will be costly, it may not be as costly as our current system keeps becoming, and if you look at employment trends, employer sponsored health care is rooted in a 1950's economy and is extremely ill-equipped for the 21st Century). Additionally, it is far less likely to bankrupt us than Trump (and Bush) economic policies - at worst, it is likely to be business as usual with regards to the deficit, and will do much better at keeping the worst of the next recession at bay. Additionally, if you care *at all* about climate change and the future we are leaving to the generations to come, there is only one choice.
Warren the Planner needs to lay out some solid numbers regarding Medicare for All (or whatever version of that her plan will be). For example, I saw one pundit sketch an example of someone paying $9,000 for health insurance whose taxes would go up by $900, for a savings of $8,100. AFAIK this writer pulled those numbers out of his a -- I mean, out of thin air, for illustration only. If you can show somebody that that's for reals, you've convinced them.

Biden and others toss around the $30 trillion total. AFAIK that came from a right-wing think tank. Is Warren going with that, or does she have her own price tag (with data to back it up)? Show us what it costs and who is going to pay how much of it. If your plan is good and your numbers are honest, you can push it proudly. I expect no less from Warren. And if you can't do that, then you are going to lose people like me who like the concept -- gods, how I would love to never have to argue with an insurance company again -- but...show me the money.

Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:05 pm

Think Pelosi plans to turn the impeachment process into a running embarassment for Trump and the Republican party? Like an open bleeding wound?
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18009
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:09 pm

In an interview with former Obama adviser David Plouffe's podcast, Campaign HQ, Mrs Clinton, herself a Democrat, said the Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50104958




It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19277
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Pyperkub » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:16 pm

Kraken wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm
Pyperkub wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:51 pm
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
Warren is not corrupt, not a liar and not going to abandon our allies. She also has actual morals. Her economic policy *may* not work (but to me, markets are much more solid with good refs, and while Health Care for all will be costly, it may not be as costly as our current system keeps becoming, and if you look at employment trends, employer sponsored health care is rooted in a 1950's economy and is extremely ill-equipped for the 21st Century). Additionally, it is far less likely to bankrupt us than Trump (and Bush) economic policies - at worst, it is likely to be business as usual with regards to the deficit, and will do much better at keeping the worst of the next recession at bay. Additionally, if you care *at all* about climate change and the future we are leaving to the generations to come, there is only one choice.
Warren the Planner needs to lay out some solid numbers regarding Medicare for All (or whatever version of that her plan will be). For example, I saw one pundit sketch an example of someone paying $9,000 for health insurance whose taxes would go up by $900, for a savings of $8,100. AFAIK this writer pulled those numbers out of his a -- I mean, out of thin air, for illustration only. If you can show somebody that that's for reals, you've convinced them.

Biden and others toss around the $30 trillion total. AFAIK that came from a right-wing think tank. Is Warren going with that, or does she have her own price tag (with data to back it up)? Show us what it costs and who is going to pay how much of it. If your plan is good and your numbers are honest, you can push it proudly. I expect no less from Warren. And if you can't do that, then you are going to lose people like me who like the concept -- gods, how I would love to never have to argue with an insurance company again -- but...show me the money.
The problem is that the estimates vary wildly:

Here's the key part (and the huge thing which most opponents ignore is how much we already pay on Health Care):
One of the key uncertainties about transitioning to a Medicare-for-all plan like the ones proposed by Warren and Sanders is whether doing so would raise or lower total health-care costs. Preliminary estimates have so far yielded wildly divergent outcomes, in part, because the financing specifics behind various candidates’ plans are largely still up in the air. How the change would affect the wallet of the typical middle-class tax payer relative to other groups also remains an open question.

But the Saez and Zucman data underscore that Americans already are paying a large health-care levy that is for all intents and purposes mandatory. If you consider health insurance costs as a tax on labor, as they do, it means the extremely rich, who derive most of their income from capital, are carrying a disproportionately light share of the total health cost load.
However, in my mind it would prepare American Business and Innovation and Labor for a much better 21st Century to have core health insurance separated from employment - especially given AI/Robots/Outsourcing of Labor, all of which are going to happen one way or another and we should have our economy prepared for it sooner rather than later.

Everything the Right has said about Single Payer is already happening - e.g. massive cost increases, health care rationing, etc. it's just that it's being done by the Insurance Companies. When was the last time you got a same day appointment at an HMO? How many hoops did you have to jump through? Did you have to lie to do it?
Last edited by Pyperkub on Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21651
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:17 pm

Kraken wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm
Pyperkub wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:51 pm
Apollo wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:01 pm
As the nightmare scenario of voting for either Trump or Warren begins to look more and more likely, I'm getting more and more depressed about the country's future. But David Brooks (My favorite conservative columnist) is starting to make me see that I really have no choice but to vote for Warren: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opin ... e=Homepage
Warren is not corrupt, not a liar and not going to abandon our allies. She also has actual morals. Her economic policy *may* not work (but to me, markets are much more solid with good refs, and while Health Care for all will be costly, it may not be as costly as our current system keeps becoming, and if you look at employment trends, employer sponsored health care is rooted in a 1950's economy and is extremely ill-equipped for the 21st Century). Additionally, it is far less likely to bankrupt us than Trump (and Bush) economic policies - at worst, it is likely to be business as usual with regards to the deficit, and will do much better at keeping the worst of the next recession at bay. Additionally, if you care *at all* about climate change and the future we are leaving to the generations to come, there is only one choice.
Warren the Planner needs to lay out some solid numbers regarding Medicare for All (or whatever version of that her plan will be). For example, I saw one pundit sketch an example of someone paying $9,000 for health insurance whose taxes would go up by $900, for a savings of $8,100. AFAIK this writer pulled those numbers out of his a -- I mean, out of thin air, for illustration only. If you can show somebody that that's for reals, you've convinced them.

Biden and others toss around the $30 trillion total. AFAIK that came from a right-wing think tank. Is Warren going with that, or does she have her own price tag (with data to back it up)? Show us what it costs and who is going to pay how much of it. If your plan is good and your numbers are honest, you can push it proudly. I expect no less from Warren. And if you can't do that, then you are going to lose people like me who like the concept -- gods, how I would love to never have to argue with an insurance company again -- but...show me the money.
Yeah, Warren needs to address this ASAP. It's the only question holding me back from full-throated support.

Of course the most realistic answer is "I'll go into the WH insisting on MfA and then moderate the plan into something that will get through both houses of Congress," but she can't really campaign on that.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18009
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:28 pm

Apparently, two different studies came up with the $32T number
A study of Medicare for All from the libertarian-oriented Mercatus Center at George Mason University put the cost at more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

The Urban Institute, a more liberal-leaning academic center in Washington, looked at Sanders’ plan in 2016 and predicted it would add $32 trillion over the decade.
link


Edit: Actually, looks like UI released a New study
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19277
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Pyperkub » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:41 pm

Defiant wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:28 pm
Apparently, two different studies came up with the $32T number
A study of Medicare for All from the libertarian-oriented Mercatus Center at George Mason University put the cost at more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

The Urban Institute, a more liberal-leaning academic center in Washington, looked at Sanders’ plan in 2016 and predicted it would add $32 trillion over the decade.
link


Edit: Actually, looks like UI released a New study
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.
Note the Mercatus study is worthless, as it doesn't look at all at current costs and the current situation. It just sells fear by looking at costs only, and even fails at that by not looking at current costs.

From the first article:
But if it’s a better deal for citizens depends on the other number Sanders put out there, the $50 trillion cost for keeping the system as it is.

That’s not federal health care spending. That’s the government’s estimate of total health care spending across the board, both public and private, over the coming decade. (It’s actually $47 trillion by 2027.)
From the latter article:
The central response from Warren and Sanders to concerns about their health plans’ cost has been to tout the overall savings for Americans, and the Urban Institute analysis suggests that for lower- and middle-income families, that’s possible. The study projects that households will save nearly $887 billion in annual costs and employers another $955 billion, some of which could revert to workers in the form of higher wages.
So, if the initial number that US Citizens are paying 4.7 trillion a year is accurate, and that M4A would cost 3.2 trillion a year, the keys are what are the gaps. Also, does M4A include drug negotiating/bulk, or will big pharma manage to cut that out as usual? IMHO, the legislation needs to mandate that employers return the savings to workers in some way or another.

The other factor is what I mentioned above - that none of the studies are looking at employment trends and the simple fact that the current Employer-Sponsored Health Care structure is completely inadequate for what 21st Century Employment already looks like, to say nothing of where it will be in 10-20 years.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34609
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:57 pm

Holman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:17 pm
Of course the most realistic answer is "I'll go into the WH insisting on MfA and then moderate the plan into something that will get through both houses of Congress," but she can't really campaign on that.
Warren is neither an ideologue nor a reckless person. M4A is where she needs to be politically now, and probably where she'd eventually like to go. But when she finally does nail this all down, as she must, her plan is likely to have a long phase-in with some firewalls. She is pragmatic.

Bear in mind that the next president will inherit a recession with no fiscal tools to fight it, the next prez will be blamed for it, and nothing big is going to get done on health care until that fire is out. Republicans will automatically oppose everything a Democratic president tries to do with everything they've got. I consider everybody's health plans aspirational and unlikely.

User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 3330
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kurth » Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:59 pm

Defiant wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:09 pm
In an interview with former Obama adviser David Plouffe's podcast, Campaign HQ, Mrs Clinton, herself a Democrat, said the Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50104958




It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
So maybe that’s the answer to my quest about why Tulsi Gabbard was on the stage for the last debate.

All roads lead to Putin!
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore

User avatar
Apollo
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Gardendale, AL

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Apollo » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:25 am

Warren's problem isn't that she's corrupt or stupid like Trump. Her problem, IMHO, is that she looks a lot like a 2020 version of Michael Dukakis: Smart and well informed, but so out of touch with independents and conservatives that she'll be easy for the GOP's war machine to paint as inept and elitist.

And BTW, I want to make clear that there is no way in Hell I was ever voting for anyone in the GOP in this election. But having to vote for Warren instead of basically any other Democrat running, makes me want to consider sleeping in on election day.

Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:52 am

Kurth wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:59 pm
Defiant wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:09 pm
In an interview with former Obama adviser David Plouffe's podcast, Campaign HQ, Mrs Clinton, herself a Democrat, said the Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50104958




It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
So maybe that’s the answer to my quest about why Tulsi Gabbard was on the stage for the last debate.

All roads lead to Putin!
Jesus this woman really is a Russian plant!
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21651
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:28 pm

Something really weird about Tulsi Gabbard: she grew up in and still adheres to what is essentially a cult.

Yes, she's a Hindu, but it's not normal Hinduism. Her family's guru is an extremist homophobe and Islamophobe, and the group is organized closely around the leader, who broke from the already odd Hare Krishnas to found something called "Science of Identity." Tulsi is a member, as are top figures in her campaign.

Being concerned about this isn't the same thing as, say, panic that JFK was a Catholic. It's more a question of how a candidate's extremist positions will skew and limit their governing perspective. It's worrying that a candidate is (e.g.) not just Catholic but specifically a member of Opus Dei.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21651
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:55 pm

Apollo wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:25 am
Warren's problem isn't that she's corrupt or stupid like Trump. Her problem, IMHO, is that she looks a lot like a 2020 version of Michael Dukakis: Smart and well informed, but so out of touch with independents and conservatives that she'll be easy for the GOP's war machine to paint as inept and elitist.

And BTW, I want to make clear that there is no way in Hell I was ever voting for anyone in the GOP in this election. But having to vote for Warren instead of basically any other Democrat running, makes me want to consider sleeping in on election day.
The thing, though, is that she's the kind of "elitist" who has spent her senate career advocating for consumers and working people. She's got a record there that a Dukakis (or even a Clinton or an Obama) can't match.

Warren is attacked from the hard-and-center right as a socialist and from the hard left as a capitalist. To me that sounds just about correct.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18009
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:50 pm


User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40269
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B » Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:06 pm

Holman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:28 pm
Something really weird about Tulsi Gabbard: she grew up in and still adheres to what is essentially a cult.
On the other hand, she did secure the coveted David Duke endorsement ahead of the primaries. Try to get your mind around that one.
It's more a question of how a candidate's extremist positions will skew and limit their governing perspective.
Like, lets say there's a disease outbreak impacting a very specific segment of a community you're ultimately in charge of. When given the best way to handle it, you opt to "pray to Jesus" for guidance instead and do nothing, allowing the outbreak to continue unchecked. I sure hope a person like that was never elevated to national level.

Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:27 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:06 pm
Holman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:28 pm
Something really weird about Tulsi Gabbard: she grew up in and still adheres to what is essentially a cult.
On the other hand, she did secure the coveted David Duke endorsement ahead of the primaries. Try to get your mind around that one.
It's more a question of how a candidate's extremist positions will skew and limit their governing perspective.
Like, lets say there's a disease outbreak impacting a very specific segment of a community you're ultimately in charge of. When given the best way to handle it, you opt to "pray to Jesus" for guidance instead and do nothing, allowing the outbreak to continue unchecked. I sure hope a person like that was never elevated to national level.
I dunno. If I were President Warren/Biden/Gabbard/Sanders and the disease affected only the GOP, I'd "Pray to Jesus" it killed them all.

But I'm kind of an asshole so... YMMV.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:20 pm

I would vote for Hillary over Biden this time around. I hope that if something shocking happens to one of the frontrunners that she gets the chance to stand in. My attitude towards Hillary changed sometime around when I posted the "Hillary for prison" thread in that I re examined all my stances around HRC and asked myself What did she *really* do?. I couldn't come up with anything other then "eleteist" and "Paid for by corporations"... Which I suppose given her upsides and service to her country, I could overlook given what we face in a second term of Trump.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 25635
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by YellowKing » Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:47 pm

Drazzil wrote:I couldn't come up with anything other then "eleteist" and "Paid for by corporations"...
That pretty much describes all politicians.

Drazzil
Posts: 3346
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Drazzil » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:43 pm

YellowKing wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:47 pm
Drazzil wrote:I couldn't come up with anything other then "eleteist" and "Paid for by corporations"...
That pretty much describes all politicians.
Yep.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19277
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Pyperkub » Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:38 pm

More M4A info:
A few facts:

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance (which covers 150 million Americans) have increased $13,375 in 2009 to $20,576 in 2019. For workers, their share went from $3,515 to $6,015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The percentage of workers enrolled in a health plan with a deductible of $2,000 or more rose from just 7 percent in 2009 to 28 percent in 2019, the KFF says.
To put it more bluntly, the percentage of people who do have health insurance but are considered underinsured — meaning their insurance does not adequately protect them from the financial strain of a serious medical event — nearly tripled from 10 percent in 2003 to 28 percent in 2018, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

Those trendlines explain why Americans continue to name health care costs as one of their top policy concerns, even with 90 percent of people covered by some kind of insurance. And they surely help explain why the political energy for another round of health care reform remains so intense less than 10 years after the Affordable Care Act became law.

These problems are only getting worse. The uninsured rate has ticked up again, after falling for most of the last decade, since the Trump administration took over. They have willfully undermined the viability of the ACA’s insurance markets and permitted work requirements for Medicaid, causing thousands of people to lose their insurance without any meaningful effect on employment.

But none of this — the very reasons we are talking about Medicare-for-all or Medicare-for-all-who-want-it — would be evident to a viewer who hears one of the 2020 candidates asked for the umpteenth time about middle-class tax hikes. Nobody is explaining to them, in setting up the question, the cost of the system as it exists today.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34609
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:42 pm

Warren will publish her M4A plan "in a few weeks."
Warren told the Iowa crowd Sunday that 10-year estimates of the cost of Medicare for All vary by “trillions and trillions of dollars” and that her team is hard at work attempting to figure out the best way to raise revenue to fund the sweeping transformation of the nation’s health care system.
Looking forward to it. If anyone can really make this work, it's her. And if nobody can really make this work, I hope she'll acknowledge that and change her tune. Either way, this will make or break her with Democrats.

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 16219
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by coopasonic » Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:11 am

Pyperkub wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:38 pm
More M4A info:
A few facts:

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance (which covers 150 million Americans) have increased $13,375 in 2009 to $20,576 in 2019. For workers, their share went from $3,515 to $6,015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
$20,576 x 150 million Americans = $3.086 trillion, or damn close to the annual estimates of the cost of medicare for all (which are stated as 10 year costs to scare us, I assume). That's not including the employee contributions or non-employer based health insurance costs. The math is still kind of sketchy as the amount my employer and i pay in covers 4 of us. Are all four of us included in that 150 million? That would dilute things significantly. I guess it's a good thing solving this problem isn't my job. I'll just continue treating my health like an avoidable expense because the deductible and coinsurance are kind of crazy.
-Coop

Jeff V
Posts: 31837
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Jeff V » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:33 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:38 pm
More M4A info:
A few facts:

To put it more bluntly, the percentage of people who do have health insurance but are considered underinsured — meaning their insurance does not adequately protect them from the financial strain of a serious medical event — nearly tripled from 10 percent in 2003 to 28 percent in 2018, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
This would include me. A 5-figure deductible means the only benefit I actually receive from my insurance are the negotiated rates on meds and standard preventative care. For years now I've required surgery on my dominant hand, which I am unable to afford. Since the issue is non-fatal and doesn't prevent me from doing my job (although it can make doing so painful at times), I suck it up and suffer with a shitty quality of life.

Post Reply