Too Late To Start Thinking About 2018?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Defiant »

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:55 pm This is a progressive democrat beating a centrist democrat
He wasn't a "centrist democrat" - his voting record shows that he was more liberal than two thirds of Democrats.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

Defiant wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:02 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:55 pm This is a progressive democrat beating a centrist democrat
He wasn't a "centrist democrat" - his voting record shows that he was more liberal than two thirds of Democrats.
Fair enough. But my point is that she's more progressive, and that this is New York City. And it's not like she's calling for seizing the means of production - it seems like a Sanders-esque platform.

In other words, why is Ocastia's win the potential herald of a left-wing tea party, while Cardin crushing Manning in MD or the Sanders organizing candidate finishing 3rd out of 3 candidates in the Iowa primary a sign that the Democratic establishment is holding?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

Also - while Ocastia's more progressive than I am generally (from what I know about her), and I suspect that I would've voted for Crowley had I lived there - this is exactly the kind of place where I WANT progressives to mount primary challenges (if they are so inclined). The democratic party needs to start building its next generation of leaders. They also need progressives to remain part of the Democratic coalition (and not engage in green party shenanigans or not voting). If progressives are going to be a part of the coalition, they need some representation, and they need some wins.

Also, one thing I appreciate about her so far (in contrast with Sanders) is that she talks up the Democratic Party as a big tent, she's proud to be a Democrat, etc. What drives me nuts about Sanders is that he wants the benefits of the Democratic Party (the major party ticket), but rhetorically he rarely has a kind word for the party, and CONSTANTLY talks about big money capturing both major parties, both parties ignore the poor, etc. etc. That shit's not helpful, especially when you need people to vote democratic in the general election.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Defiant »

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:07 pm
In other words, why is Ocastia's win the potential herald of a left-wing tea party, while Cardin crushing Manning in MD or the Sanders organizing candidate finishing 3rd out of 3 candidates in the Iowa primary a sign that the Democratic establishment is holding?
Image

I think the establishment is "holding" - there have been, what two thirds of primaries so far, and this was the first incumbent defeated.

But the tea-party didn't happen over night but over several cycles. There might be a sign of a future Democratic tea party. (even one that just occupies a wing of the Democratic party, rather than destroy the "establishment") Or it might be much ado about nothing. Hence why I say I want to keep an eye out.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

Defiant wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:17 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:07 pm
In other words, why is Ocastia's win the potential herald of a left-wing tea party, while Cardin crushing Manning in MD or the Sanders organizing candidate finishing 3rd out of 3 candidates in the Iowa primary a sign that the Democratic establishment is holding?
Image

I think the establishment is "holding" - there have been, what two thirds of primaries so far, and this was the first incumbent defeated.

But the tea-party didn't happen over night but over several cycles. There might be a sign of a future Democratic tea party. (even one that just occupies a wing of the Democratic party, rather than destroy the "establishment") Or it might be much ado about nothing. Hence why I say I want to keep an eye out.
I mean, sure. It's just not much of a indicator to this point.

ALSO - I am now going to learn her name. It is Ocasio-Cortez, NOT Ocastia. I was in the ballpark, at least.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Rip »

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:55 pm
Defiant wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:28 pm

As long as she's wearing a blue shirt and doesn't have swastika-wearing fruit bats exploding out of her head, I don't mind having a differing opinion.
Not every extremist wears a swastika-wearing fruit bats exploding out of their head - that's usually how they get in in the first place.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for now, but I'll be keeping an eye out, in case this does herald the start of a far left tea party.
People need to pump the breaks here. This is a progressive democrat beating a centrist democrat in New York City at a time when progressives in particular are pissed the hell off.
The 10% turnout doesn't bear that out.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

The Democrat Is Up Big In Arizona’s Senate Race — For Now.

Basically Sinema is up 7+ points in the latest batch of polling, though that's likely to shrink at least somewhat (in part because Republicans are in the middle of a bitter primary, while the Democrats are not).
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Unagi »

Well... Looks like we have a full fledge Nazi running in Illinois... and T.Cruz has had the good sense to be a little freaked out by it:
"This is horrific. An avowed Nazi running for Congress. To the good people of Illinois, you have two reasonable choices: write in another candidate, or vote for the Democrat. This bigoted fool should receive ZERO votes," Cruz, a Texas Republican, wrote on Twitter.

I wonder if Cruz has considered what has made this reality posible.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Holman »

Image
It's a bit uncanny, really.

Of course today Jake and Elwood would be denounced on Fox and POTUS twitter for incivility.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5306
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by em2nought »

#WalkAway Campaign- WHY I LEFT LIBERALISM & THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pjs7uoOkag
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by hepcat »

Trump's PR team is working overtime, aren't they? Although they should have paid a little extra so that their crisis actor would at least mention the name Trump in their paid ad. I mean, it WAS in the script, but even an out of work actor has some dignity. :mrgreen:
Covfefe!
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Holman »


Dave Weigel wrote:The #walkaway hashtag - short for “walk away from the Democratic Party” - is like a playground for bots. I clicked three of the accounts at random, and checked their first tweets. Two clearly originated as bots, once was created today to feed the hashtag.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Unagi »

#RunAway
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by hepcat »

Image
Covfefe!
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 20331
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Skinypupy »

Unagi wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:54 am#RunAway
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Defiant »

Their high-profile primary was over weeks ago, but tensions between Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., and victorious challenger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have reignited in a Twitter spat.
But on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez publicly accused Crowley of "mounting a 3rd party challenge against me" because his name will still appear on the ballot in November as the nominee of the Working Families Party, a progressive third party that had endorsed him.
Crowley fired back on Twitter by denying the charge and reiterating his commitment not to run against her. "I've made my support for you clear and the fact that I'm not running," the veteran congressman said.
The Working Families Party confirmed that it asked Crowley to withdraw his name from the ballot after he lost the primary, but Crowley has refused, since none of the ways to do so are acceptable to him.

Under state law, to give up his spot on the ballot, Crowley would either have to register to vote in a different state (he does have a home in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) or switch his candidacy to run for a different office that he has no actual intention of seeking or likelihood of winning, such as a county clerkship in a Republican-dominated area upstate.

The only other ways that a name can be removed from the ballot is if the candidate dies or commits a felony.
link
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

To be clear, Crowley was endorsed by and got on the ballot on behalf of the WFP awhile ago, before the primary. He's clearly not "running against her", it's just that his name (as it stands) will still be on the ballot. I'm undecided how reasonable it would be to expect him to do one of the ways to get off the ballot. Also seems like state law is a little silly here - obviously there needs to be some deadline beyond which a candidate cannot be removed from the ballot (reprinting issues, at the least), but if you're going to allow a candidate's name to be removed, why force them to run for a different office?

In any event Ocasia-Cortez's charge that Crowley is running a third party challenge is obviously wrong (as long as he continues to endorse her and not campaign), and getting into a twitter spat with him about it seems like a dumb way to persuade him to do one of the things needed to be removed from the ballot.

FWIW Nate Silver's analysis said that the odds the Crowley remaining on the ballot but not campaigning costs Ocasia-Cortez the seat in a district that heavily democratic is super remote.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Defiant »



User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by LordMortis »

I think I'm settling in with my candidate for Governor and I guess my own latent bigot is showing through. As going in to the last week, I'd have never thought I'd consider Abdul El-Sayed. I was thinking Gretchen Whitmer but boy did El-Sayed push the right buttons. I'm totally torn. I really want to vote for him but I can already hear the bullshit chants of bringing Sharia law to Michigan and I think the general election will tear him apart irrespective of the fact that he may be hands down the best thing that could happen to the state and his influence could wash over to the federal level. The chants that would destroy his chances are just crazy because El-Sayed is actually much more *socialist* than I would normally like in candidate but of course, I've been pretty consistent over the last decade in my belief the US needs a huge push in the progressive direction, even if it should fall well short of truly progressive goals.

How is this the geography I am tied to in 2018?

https://abdulformichigan.com/issues

I hate that I've allowed the GOP to make my first priority defeating the GOP and not voting for the right people.

Get rid of 2, 7, 10, 13, 18 and give me more than a broad-brush for number 4 (Equal opportunity is a complex issue). But the everything else that remains are strong for me.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Fitzy »

I’ve been railing against the move towards socialism by the Democrats for a bit ( possibly overreacting as well). Mostly I think because I don’t want to be all alone in my beliefs. I want a party! And it’s sure as hell not the Republicans.

My big concern was how to pay for everything given the relatively high level of taxation combining all levels of government. I agree with the ultimate goals of the Democrats here (affordable housing, better education, living wage jobs...), I just don’t agree with how to get there.

However, according to the democrat running for governor of Maryland, everything (free college, free healthcare, affordable housing, preschool-12+ education) is paid for through criminal justice reform and legalization of marijuana and no new taxes.

And the Democrat running for county executive here thinks the jobs should go to the counties next door. Meanwhile the county can provide legal aid for all undocumented residents, full time preschool-12+, lower housing costs, rebuild the roads to include rapid transit buses, include more frequent buses into all areas, maintain “quality of life” (no new high density developments), without cutting any current spending or raising taxes. While dealing with a massive upcoming deficit.

I’m...skeptical about the math.

Ultimately I realize these are all over promisies to get votes and they have no intention of doing any of them (except maintaining “quality of life”).
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Kraken »

There is more than enough money for "free" (single-payer) healthcare. We're just currently giving it to insurance companies and not getting anything remotely close to our money's worth. Remove the profit imperative and duplication of effort, and voila. That one, at least, is easy (in concept).
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by noxiousdog »

Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:29 pm There is more than enough money for "free" (single-payer) healthcare. We're just currently giving it to insurance companies and not getting anything remotely close to our money's worth. Remove the profit imperative and duplication of effort, and voila. That one, at least, is easy (in concept).
How do you collect the money for premiums (for lack of a better word)?

It's not insurmountable, but it's not easy.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
gilraen
Posts: 4312
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:45 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by gilraen »

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:39 pm How do you collect the money for premiums (for lack of a better word)?
Pretty sure in the rest of the developed world it's just called taxes.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by noxiousdog »

gilraen wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:01 pm
noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:39 pm How do you collect the money for premiums (for lack of a better word)?
Pretty sure in the rest of the developed world it's just called taxes.
Right. And it wasn't 50%-80% subsidized by employers.

Not insurmountable, but not the least bit easy.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by LordMortis »

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:36 pm
gilraen wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:01 pm
noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:39 pm How do you collect the money for premiums (for lack of a better word)?
Pretty sure in the rest of the developed world it's just called taxes.
Right. And it wasn't 50%-80% subsidized by employers.

Not insurmountable, but not the least bit easy.
It's not really subsidized by employers, it's just hidden from our benefits and left to the discretion to arbitrarily change by employers. :x My "subsidy" just got fucked this month and I had no say in it. It will be like taking a $3000 a year paycut for me with a lot more paperwork, tracking, and room for headaches.

Our employers are, however, already subsidized by our taxes for providing us the benefit of providing us healthcare as a benefit we don't get to directly be involved in.

....Not insurmountable, but not the least bit easy.... seemingly by design after decades of bureaucracy attached itself to it...
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Kraken »

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:39 pm
Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:29 pm There is more than enough money for "free" (single-payer) healthcare. We're just currently giving it to insurance companies and not getting anything remotely close to our money's worth. Remove the profit imperative and duplication of effort, and voila. That one, at least, is easy (in concept).
How do you collect the money for premiums (for lack of a better word)?

It's not insurmountable, but it's not easy.
Well, I meant that it's conceptually easy. Of the socialist agenda items making Fitzy uncomfortable, this one is the most affordable. In fact, it ought to save us a fortune over the status quo, if a dozen or so other successful "socialized medicine" nations are any guide.

Wife and I pay $1,600 a month (including her employer's contribution) for health insurance. If we could get equivalent healthcare by paying $1,200 in taxes instead, we'd be all over saving that $400 monthly markup, as would any sensible household. Medicare-for-all polls >60% popular support, so it's not that voters need a lot of convincing. The opponents are the people who are pocketing our $400 overpayment, and the congressmen that they buy with it.

I'm not clever enough to tell you how to change that, but there is clearly more than enough money sloshing around the system already. It's not like we have to come up with hundreds of billions of dollars more; on the contrary, we probably get tens of billions back. If the Republicans finally succeed in eradicating the ACA, they will create the political opening that single-payer needs, because we will have tried and failed to reform our market-based system. Medicare-for-all is the sharpest arrow in the Democratic quiver (apart from SMASH TRUMP!!!).
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Holman »

Perfectly stable and secure European economies seem to manage it without hanging bankers from lampposts.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Fitzy »

Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:01 pm Medicare-for-all is the sharpest arrow in the Democratic quiver (apart from SMASH TRUMP!!!).
This is only a sharp arrow if: 1. The majority of people will pay less and 2. They can be convinced of it.

I could more readily believe 1 than 2. :D

(I'm assuming the $1,200 is made up? Or is that what the proposals are claiming? Either way I'll use it, it's a nice number)

I think my wife and I pay ~$1,000 a month for health insurance including employer contribution. Including co-pays and deductibles, I'm not sure, that must add another ~$5,000 a year. So ~$1,400 maybe a month? If we were taxed $1,200 a month for government run healthcare, win!

But...

Outside of taxes is it free? No co-pays? If there is no cost, are we really going to get it for $1,200 a month without adding to the debt?

If there are co-pays or percentage pays, than that's going to eat into the monthly savings.

I notice on every EOB that what our providers charge is considerably different than what our insurance pays. On Medicare-for-all, if there's a co-pay, which charge am I paying? Is there one price across the country, or is the government going to set payments based on location? If it's location, isn't that going to increase the administration costs?

Finally, there are still currently ~28 million American uninsured and ~41 million under-insured. Adding all those people into the system will strain an already strained system. The way the system reacts to strain is to raise prices. A government run health insurance could keep prices down, but would that replace un/under insured problems with access problems?

I'm not saying single payer or a government run health care system isn't the future. I'm saying it's no where near as simple as "Medicare for all" makes it out to be. The issues are vastly complex and I understand that politics requires a dumbed down version, but as soon as the work starts, that very complexity is going to kill it politically.

And I'm saying I'm skeptical it would be much of a savings. :D

On the other hand. I'm willing to give up my portion of the savings and then some if there is a plan that would cover everyone and increase access greatly for the un/under insured. I haven't seen such a proposal. I don't think the US Congress can come up with one that works nationwide. And I don't think such a thing could work as long as our economic system relies on unrestricted greed to drive results.

P.S. None of this even addresses dental/eye which I did not include. Maybe Kraken did?
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by LordMortis »

Fitzy wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:09 am
Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:01 pm Medicare-for-all is the sharpest arrow in the Democratic quiver (apart from SMASH TRUMP!!!).
This is only a sharp arrow if: 1. The majority of people will pay less and 2. They can be convinced of it.

I could more readily believe 1 than 2. :D

(I'm assuming the $1,200 is made up? Or is that what the proposals are claiming? Either way I'll use it, it's a nice number)

I think my wife and I pay ~$1,000 a month for health insurance including employer contribution. Including co-pays and deductibles, I'm not sure, that must add another ~$5,000 a year. So ~$1,400 maybe a month? If we were taxed $1,200 a month for government run healthcare, win!

But...

Outside of taxes is it free? No co-pays? If there is no cost, are we really going to get it for $1,200 a month without adding to the debt?

If there are co-pays or percentage pays, than that's going to eat into the monthly savings.

I notice on every EOB that what our providers charge is considerably different than what our insurance pays. On Medicare-for-all, if there's a co-pay, which charge am I paying? Is there one price across the country, or is the government going to set payments based on location? If it's location, isn't that going to increase the administration costs?

Finally, there are still currently ~28 million American uninsured and ~41 million under-insured. Adding all those people into the system will strain an already strained system. The way the system reacts to strain is to raise prices. A government run health insurance could keep prices down, but would that replace un/under insured problems with access problems?

I'm not saying single payer or a government run health care system isn't the future. I'm saying it's no where near as simple as "Medicare for all" makes it out to be. The issues are vastly complex and I understand that politics requires a dumbed down version, but as soon as the work starts, that very complexity is going to kill it politically.

And I'm saying I'm skeptical it would be much of a savings. :D

On the other hand. I'm willing to give up my portion of the savings and then some if there is a plan that would cover everyone and increase access greatly for the un/under insured. I haven't seen such a proposal. I don't think the US Congress can come up with one that works nationwide. And I don't think such a thing could work as long as our economic system relies on unrestricted greed to drive results.

P.S. None of this even addresses dental/eye which I did not include. Maybe Kraken did?
This is where this administration could shine. the single payer system savings would be all about negotiating from a position of strength. You want to provide artificial hips? Well, I can set you up the provider for the needs of 300,000,000 million people but you need to come in at an agreeable price and make guarantees and quite frankly reneging on those guarantees will mean nationalizing your business until an alternate provide can be found. Suddenly the cost of an artificial hip goes down. Those arbitrary raises in drug prices of xthousands of percents? If they are part of the US formulary? Done.

It gets a bit more complex when you hit the actual providers of care not just the suppliers of care things though.

And of course
Not insurmountable, but not the least bit easy.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Fitzy »

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:31 pm Perfectly stable and secure European economies seem to manage it without hanging bankers from lampposts.
Are we sure they are stable and secure? :confusion-shrug:

Do their healthcare systems work as well as progressives here think? Do they work as badly as conservatives think? I'm skeptical of both. I suspect the answer is in the middle, that the US healthcare system at its best is without peer. At its worst, it's pathetic for a nation of half our resources, let alone what we could do. Combined we get results that are bad and confusion as people see the good and can't understand how we can simultaneously be the best and mediocre.

And the big one for me, can they continue to work without the security and research subsidy the US pays? I'm not DT saying our allies are being unfair. There are damn good reasons for the US to be securing democracies across the globe and we should be doing more to oppose authoritarianism. I fully support our NATO and Asian alliances without reservation and am fine with the financial burden.

But I do think that US taxpayers subsidize a not insignificant amount of the western world's security and that US healthcare research subsidizes a not insignificant amount of the rest of the world's healthcare, not just through direct spending on research but also on increased spending on healthcare purchases. Given our resources we should be doing both, I just happen to believe we can continue to do so while finding a way to help our own people who are being left behind.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

I tend to agree with Fitzy about the politics of Medicare-For-All. The Republicans made massive political hay out of scaring people that the ACA was a government takeover of medical care / socialized medicine, when the ACA was at its core mainly about the government subsidizing and extending the private medical and insurance industries. I have to imagine that it's not going to be too hard to do the same out of something that actually is a government takeover of the insurance industry. Plus the insurance industry was largely on board with the ACA; I have to assume that they would be mortally opposed to single payer for all, and happy to fund opposition to it.

I am inclined to agree that it or something like it is good policy, but the idea that it is also going to be great politics seems unlikely.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Fitzy »

LordMortis wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:23 am
This is where this administration could shine. the single payer system savings would be all about negotiating from a position of strength. You want to provide artificial hips? Well, I can set you up the provider for the needs of 300,000,000 million people but you need to come in at an agreeable price and make guarantees and quite frankly reneging on those guarantees will mean nationalizing your business until an alternate provide can be found. Suddenly the cost of an artificial hip goes down. Those arbitrary raises in drug prices of xthousands of percents? If they are part of the US formulary? Done.
Uh, sorry. But I don't think Trump could do it. I read an op-ed which I thought explained his negotiation style pretty well. It almost seems admiring until the very end. Trump negotiating medical prices would be all about Trump. What will get him the biggest bump in worshipers for the least amount of actual work. He might drop the price of one or two high profile drugs, but that infected toenail you need fixed will cost 10x as much.

It gets a bit more complex when you hit the actual providers of care not just the suppliers of care things though.

And of course
Not insurmountable, but not the least bit easy.
Agreed. And this is why I think the Medicare for all debate is doing a disservice to the voters. It's not that simple. And Democrats need to stop pretending it will be or when the complexities pop out during implementation, they'll lose the next election. Again.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by LordMortis »

Fitzy wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:31 am Uh, sorry. But I don't think Trump could do it. I read an op-ed which I thought explained his negotiation style pretty well. It almost seems admiring until the very end. Trump negotiating medical prices would be all about Trump. What will get him the biggest bump in worshipers for the least amount of actual work. He might drop the price of one or two high profile drugs, but that infected toenail you need fixed will cost 10x as much.
My thunk is if your strength is supposed to be in negotiating and negotiating from a position of strength, this is where you'd have an opportunity to shine... Or be exposed....
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Kraken »

Fitzy wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:09 am
Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:01 pm Medicare-for-all is the sharpest arrow in the Democratic quiver (apart from SMASH TRUMP!!!).
This is only a sharp arrow if: 1. The majority of people will pay less and 2. They can be convinced of it.

I could more readily believe 1 than 2. :D

(I'm assuming the $1,200 is made up? Or is that what the proposals are claiming? Either way I'll use it, it's a nice number)

I think my wife and I pay ~$1,000 a month for health insurance including employer contribution. Including co-pays and deductibles, I'm not sure, that must add another ~$5,000 a year. So ~$1,400 maybe a month? If we were taxed $1,200 a month for government run healthcare, win!

But...

Outside of taxes is it free? No co-pays? If there is no cost, are we really going to get it for $1,200 a month without adding to the debt?

If there are co-pays or percentage pays, than that's going to eat into the monthly savings.

I notice on every EOB that what our providers charge is considerably different than what our insurance pays. On Medicare-for-all, if there's a co-pay, which charge am I paying? Is there one price across the country, or is the government going to set payments based on location? If it's location, isn't that going to increase the administration costs?

Finally, there are still currently ~28 million American uninsured and ~41 million under-insured. Adding all those people into the system will strain an already strained system. The way the system reacts to strain is to raise prices. A government run health insurance could keep prices down, but would that replace un/under insured problems with access problems?

I'm not saying single payer or a government run health care system isn't the future. I'm saying it's no where near as simple as "Medicare for all" makes it out to be. The issues are vastly complex and I understand that politics requires a dumbed down version, but as soon as the work starts, that very complexity is going to kill it politically.

And I'm saying I'm skeptical it would be much of a savings. :D

On the other hand. I'm willing to give up my portion of the savings and then some if there is a plan that would cover everyone and increase access greatly for the un/under insured. I haven't seen such a proposal. I don't think the US Congress can come up with one that works nationwide. And I don't think such a thing could work as long as our economic system relies on unrestricted greed to drive results.

P.S. None of this even addresses dental/eye which I did not include. Maybe Kraken did?
Yes, I made up the numbers purely for illustration (except for the $1,600 that we pay). Our insurance covers vision care, but dental is another $100/mo or so.

Your nuts-and-bolts questions will have to be hammered out in an actual legislative proposal, so I won't even go there except to say that Medicare is the model. Presumably you could opt into various benefit tiers for modest (or no) premiums and could still buy supplemental private insurance if you want lavish benefits. I won't speculate about that any further.

As far as popular support, googling "medicare for all popularity" brought up links telling me that it enjoys majority support in 42 states (WaPo, May '18) and 59% overall approval (Business Insider, March '18). Democrats would be nuts not to run with this.

Also, in terms of overall government costs, I forgot to point out that Medicare and Medicaid would both be discontinued in favor of one universal system, so that's another huge pot of money in play.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

Kraken wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:00 am
Fitzy wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:09 am
Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:01 pm Medicare-for-all is the sharpest arrow in the Democratic quiver (apart from SMASH TRUMP!!!).
This is only a sharp arrow if: 1. The majority of people will pay less and 2. They can be convinced of it.

I could more readily believe 1 than 2. :D

(I'm assuming the $1,200 is made up? Or is that what the proposals are claiming? Either way I'll use it, it's a nice number)

I think my wife and I pay ~$1,000 a month for health insurance including employer contribution. Including co-pays and deductibles, I'm not sure, that must add another ~$5,000 a year. So ~$1,400 maybe a month? If we were taxed $1,200 a month for government run healthcare, win!

But...

Outside of taxes is it free? No co-pays? If there is no cost, are we really going to get it for $1,200 a month without adding to the debt?

If there are co-pays or percentage pays, than that's going to eat into the monthly savings.

I notice on every EOB that what our providers charge is considerably different than what our insurance pays. On Medicare-for-all, if there's a co-pay, which charge am I paying? Is there one price across the country, or is the government going to set payments based on location? If it's location, isn't that going to increase the administration costs?

Finally, there are still currently ~28 million American uninsured and ~41 million under-insured. Adding all those people into the system will strain an already strained system. The way the system reacts to strain is to raise prices. A government run health insurance could keep prices down, but would that replace un/under insured problems with access problems?

I'm not saying single payer or a government run health care system isn't the future. I'm saying it's no where near as simple as "Medicare for all" makes it out to be. The issues are vastly complex and I understand that politics requires a dumbed down version, but as soon as the work starts, that very complexity is going to kill it politically.

And I'm saying I'm skeptical it would be much of a savings. :D

On the other hand. I'm willing to give up my portion of the savings and then some if there is a plan that would cover everyone and increase access greatly for the un/under insured. I haven't seen such a proposal. I don't think the US Congress can come up with one that works nationwide. And I don't think such a thing could work as long as our economic system relies on unrestricted greed to drive results.

P.S. None of this even addresses dental/eye which I did not include. Maybe Kraken did?
Yes, I made up the numbers purely for illustration (except for the $1,600 that we pay). Our insurance covers vision care, but dental is another $100/mo or so.

Your nuts-and-bolts questions will have to be hammered out in an actual legislative proposal, so I won't even go there except to say that Medicare is the model. Presumably you could opt into various benefit tiers for modest (or no) premiums and could still buy supplemental private insurance if you want lavish benefits. I won't speculate about that any further.

As far as popular support, googling "medicare for all popularity" brought up links telling me that it enjoys majority support in 42 states (WaPo, May '18) and 59% overall approval (Business Insider, March '18). Democrats would be nuts not to run with this.

Also, in terms of overall government costs, I forgot to point out that Medicare and Medicaid would both be discontinued in favor of one universal system, so that's another huge pot of money in play.
I believe that it has majority support in a lot of states *now*. But it hasn't really entered the public consciousness all that much, and more importantly hasn't been the subject of sustained attack yet. Once it gets into the partisan woodshed, the support is going to drop precipitously (mainly because support from GOP aligned voters is likely to drop to minimal levels).

I am sure that it makes sense for some Democrats (maybe even most) to run on Medicare for all in 2018. But the closer it comes to a real proposal that could be passed, the lower its support is going to get.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by noxiousdog »

Kraken wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:00 am
Also, in terms of overall government costs, I forgot to point out that Medicare and Medicaid would both be discontinued in favor of one universal system, so that's another huge pot of money in play.
It's not really about the money, but about changing who pays and how much. It's about taking all the current "voluntary" (not really, but kinda) corporate funding and changing it to one or more of the following:
1) an employee tax
2) Increase income taxes about 15k per year.
3) Add a big VAT/Sales tax.

Those are going to be major issues and negotiations. I'm pretty sure it will happen eventually, but it's going to be contentious.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by El Guapo »

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:24 am
Kraken wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:00 am
Also, in terms of overall government costs, I forgot to point out that Medicare and Medicaid would both be discontinued in favor of one universal system, so that's another huge pot of money in play.
It's not really about the money, but about changing who pays and how much. It's about taking all the current "voluntary" (not really, but kinda) corporate funding and changing it to one or more of the following:
1) an employee tax
2) Increase income taxes about 15k per year.
3) Add a big VAT/Sales tax.

Those are going to be major issues and negotiations. I'm pretty sure it will happen eventually, but it's going to be contentious.
The other factor in the debate is that, since there is data that shows (as I understand it) that the U.S. pays significantly more per capita than other industrialized countries for health outcomes that are no better, there's reason to believe that there are cost efficiencies to be wrung out of the system. Of course, how much is plausible, and the best way to realize those efficiencies, are going to be a matter of significant debate. But it also means that more aggressive / left-wing politicians are likely to assume massive cost efficiencies, which would help them make the math work without major middle-class tax hikes.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by noxiousdog »

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:45 am The other factor in the debate is that, since there is data that shows (as I understand it) that the U.S. pays significantly more per capita than other industrialized countries for health outcomes that are no better, there's reason to believe that there are cost efficiencies to be wrung out of the system. Of course, how much is plausible, and the best way to realize those efficiencies, are going to be a matter of significant debate. But it also means that more aggressive / left-wing politicians are likely to assume massive cost efficiencies, which would help them make the math work without major middle-class tax hikes.
That only happens if we can get doctors and hospitals to charge less. That's less likely than universities.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2018?

Post by Fireball »

Fitzy wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:23 am Do their healthcare systems work as well as progressives here think?
Not always, but almost always better than ours.
I suspect the answer is in the middle, that the US healthcare system at its best is without peer. At its worst, it's pathetic for a nation of half our resources, let alone what we could do. Combined we get results that are bad and confusion as people see the good and can't understand how we can simultaneously be the best and mediocre.
Other nations provide similar or better health outcomes to their populations at lower per-capita costs. Sometimes there are longer waits than Americans are used to for non-emergency procedures. Sometimes patients have to take generics instead of brand named drugs in situations where Americans wouldn't have to. If you are rich or have really, really good health insurance, under a Medicare for All system, you'd likely be unhappy with some of the scheduling choices you'd have to make. If you are poor, you wouldn't die needlessly, as you often would under our system.

Also, when considering health care costs, it's also important to consider *future* health care costs. A plan that cost you more out of pocket today but which cut the rate of growth of health care costs significantly would end up saving you a lot of money over the course of your life.
And the big one for me, can they continue to work without the security and research subsidy the US pays?
Is the US going to stop spending an obscene amount of money on defense? And there are plenty of places in the world outside of America where important medical research takes place. It was Europeans, not Americans, who first isolated HIV. South Korean pharmaceutical development is of growing global importance. As in most things, America isn't nearly as important or central as we were 30 years ago.

However, it is very likely that if America adopted a sane health care system, costs in Europe, Canada and Asia would likely rise slightly. That seems fair to me. I don't see why we should overpay and let our poor people die of treatable conditions just to keep their costs down.

The main obstacle to a Medicare for All program is that people with employer-provided coverage generally really, really like it. A better solution that moving everyone to Medicare might be what the Center for American Progress has proposed: moving everyone *without employer coverage* to Medicare.

CAP: Medicare Extra for All

Combined with All-Payer rate setting, something like CAP's Medicare Extra (get it? get it? It'd be Medicare Part E! those jokesters at CAP!) would create universal coverage and slower cost growth.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Post Reply