2020 Presidential Election

[*michaelsean*]

(03-04-2020, 11:14 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 1.6 trillion to cancel all current student debt. 600 billion to make public colleges free again.

I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything regarding private colleges, but I'm not positive. I believe Bernie only worries about public colleges and their cost.

Well hell if I thought he could actually accomplish that, I might be persuaded to let my own self-interest guide me.  But I'd say not a chance in hell.  

[Yojimbo]

(03-04-2020, 11:14 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 1.6 trillion to cancel all current student debt. 600 billion to make public colleges free again.

I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything regarding private colleges, but I'm not positive. I believe Bernie only worries about public colleges and their cost.

A little more detail, this includes community colleges and trade schools.

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 11:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well hell if I thought he could actually accomplish that, I might be persuaded to let my own self-interest guide me.  But I'd say not a chance in hell.  

Well, when you hit em with "we need to spend 34 trillion dollars on healthcare," suddenly, 1.6 trillion to cancel student debt sounds a bit more reasonable

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2020, 10:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Which is very odd because not a single person is demanding Biden explain a single one of his policies. I have no idea what Biden's healthcare plan. Even his own website is light on details.

The only thing he's said about his healthcare plan in debates was "My plan makes a limit of co-pays to be $1,000."

What does that mean? You got me. Was he talking about deductible? Max Out of Pocket? Or did he actually mean co-pay? In which case, that's not a thing people care about because co-pays rarely (or maybe never) reach $1,000...

I think people just fear change. they've been convinced that insurance companies are somehow not bad for us as a country and are unwilling to risk what they consider a non-life threatening system (even though it is) for a chance at an exceptional system.

But Biden is better than Trump, so it's a start, I guess.

He's basically running on reviving Obamacare and adding a public option that you can buy into. 

While insurance companies may suck, saying that you will get rid of all insurance companies and force people on medicare is very unpopular. It's the most drastic move possible and that does scare people. Bernie has to grasp that reality. It's not just billionaires making people think it.  

[hollodero]

(03-04-2020, 10:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Which is very odd because not a single person is demanding Biden explain a single one of his policies. I have no idea what Biden's healthcare plan.

Hm. I do not care about that topic at all, but still I figured Biden wants to keep and strengthen Obamacare, main point is a public option.

I'd also figure there's not too much more to know. What good are all those detailed plans that have to go through two legislative chambers first, with lots of changes, amendments and last-minute scribblings and all.

[Belsnickel]

Bloomberg is officially out.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-04-2020, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bloomberg is officially out.

But as revenge for not picking him, he's going to run his commercials through October.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-04-2020, 01:13 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, when you hit em with "we need to spend 34 trillion dollars on healthcare," suddenly, 1.6 trillion to cancel student debt sounds a bit more reasonable

You make a point.

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2020, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bloomberg is officially out.

I made this for the kids

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 01:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He's basically running on reviving Obamacare and adding a public option that you can buy into. 

While insurance companies may suck, saying that you will get rid of all insurance companies and force people on medicare is very unpopular. It's the most drastic move possible and that does scare people. Bernie has to grasp that reality. It's not just billionaires making people think it.  

I'm not certain whether or not Bernie would actually get rid of insurance companies or just render them obsolete.

I'm pretty sure there'd still be private insurance companies if M4A were passed. They'd probably just be supplement programs to, for example, skip the "line" for non-emergency surgeries and the like.

But regarding the middle man that is sucking money out of the system without providing any meaningful value? Yea, I don't mind them going extinct.

The concern I have with the public option is that the majority of people who currently have insurance through their employer are not necessarily going to go with "Medicare for all who want it" over their private insurance for a variety of reasons, whether that be uncertainty of the new system or just general inertia to the familiar. Why risk a new healthcare system when you have one that you know, at the very least, won't bankrupt you?


If the public option is not taken on, en masse, by working, healthy people who are already getting private insurance through their employer, that would leave the system to only insure the most unhealthy and/or oldest people in the country, who may not have access to insurance any other way.

The way an insurance system works is that the young, healthy and active members spend into the system but don't use it very often (because they are young and healthy) and offset the costs of the older, less healthy people who also pay into it, but use it more often.


I think there's a very high risk that only unhealthy and old people will take the public option, leaving the system extremely bloated (because the premiums being paid in are not offsetting the costs of the healthcare given to the unhealthy and old people) and is, therefore, extremely expensive. As it gets more expensive, premiums and deductibles go up.


It's my understanding that this was essentially what happened to Obamacare, with the system being overloaded with "uninsurable" people who were expensive to cover, but young, relatively healthy people who were previously uninsured often decided to just take the penalty instead, as it was cheaper than having insurance that they didn't think they'd need.


As the public option bloats (with expensive patients and relatively few cheap patients), the more expensive it gets and the less capable it is of competing with private insurers. This ultimately defeats the entire purpose of the proposal.


So how do you convince already insured people/healthy people to buy into a new system, in order to keep the costs balanced?


Plus, there's the most obvious problem with the public option that it doesn't cover people who can't afford insurance. The people who can't afford a monthly premium, or are unwilling to pay one because they think they don't need it, before having a catastrophic injury and going bankrupt.


So there will still be millions of people with no insurance, so was the problem even really solved?


If this were to occur and a public option was instituted and subsequently buckled under its own weight, we'd lose the ability to push for universal healthcare for the next...3 decades at least. Any time you'd bring it up, conservatives (and moderates) would just say "we tried that already in 2020, don't you remember? It failed!"...Again, kind of like what they say about Obamacare now haha.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-04-2020, 02:59 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not certain whether or not Bernie would actually get rid of insurance companies or just render them obsolete.

Even up here, we have plenty of medical insurance/coverages.

Free healthcare can only go so far; as mentioned in my other thread, things such as hospital stays, tests (MRIs, CT Scans, etc.), visiting your family doctor, treatments in-hospital, surgeries, those are all covered by our free healthcare.

Dentists, prescription meds and Specialists are NOT covered by our free healthcare; that part is handled by insurance companies and benefits providers, but you need to have a job that is concert with (or be on disability), to take advantage of it.

It goes without saying as well, but non-residents (outside of Students on a VISA, so we're talking refugees and others here on work VISAs and illegal immigrants) are subject to fees for all of the goodies we have above (though I think this is province-based).

When looking at what you guys would pay for and not, I think it has to be broken down/looked at more closely, than just paying for EVERYTHING. Thus, if those arguing against are using blanket costs and the like, I think the US Medical System would have to be looked at more closely, IMO.

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2020, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bloomberg is officially out.

Even being endorsed by Judge Judy couldn't save his lousy ass.  

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2020, 02:59 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not certain whether or not Bernie would actually get rid of insurance companies or just render them obsolete.

His plan gets rid of all private insurance. Plans like Pete's allowed you to keep private insurance. This was what caused the issue with Sanders and that one union in NV.

Quote:I'm pretty sure there'd still be private insurance companies if M4A were passed. They'd probably just be supplement programs to, for example, skip the "line" for non-emergency surgeries and the like.


But regarding the middle man that is sucking money out of the system without providing any meaningful value? Yea, I don't mind them going extinct.

The concern I have with the public option is that the majority of people who currently have insurance through their employer are not necessarily going to go with "Medicare for all who want it" over their private insurance for a variety of reasons, whether that be uncertainty of the new system or just general inertia to the familiar. Why risk a new healthcare system when you have one that you know, at the very least, won't bankrupt you?


If the public option is not taken on, en masse, by working, healthy people who are already getting private insurance through their employer, that would leave the system to only insure the most unhealthy and/or oldest people in the country, who may not have access to insurance any other way.

The way an insurance system works is that the young, healthy and active members spend into the system but don't use it very often (because they are young and healthy) and offset the costs of the older, less healthy people who also pay into it, but use it more often.


I think there's a very high risk that only unhealthy and old people will take the public option, leaving the system extremely bloated (because the premiums being paid in are not offsetting the costs of the healthcare given to the unhealthy and old people) and is, therefore, extremely expensive. As it gets more expensive, premiums and deductibles go up.


It's my understanding that this was essentially what happened to Obamacare, with the system being overloaded with "uninsurable" people who were expensive to cover, but young, relatively healthy people who were previously uninsured often decided to just take the penalty instead, as it was cheaper than having insurance that they didn't think they'd need.


As the public option bloats (with expensive patients and relatively few cheap patients), the more expensive it gets and the less capable it is of competing with private insurers. This ultimately defeats the entire purpose of the proposal.


So how do you convince already insured people/healthy people to buy into a new system, in order to keep the costs balanced?


Plus, there's the most obvious problem with the public option that it doesn't cover people who can't afford insurance. The people who can't afford a monthly premium, or are unwilling to pay one because they think they don't need it, before having a catastrophic injury and going bankrupt.


So there will still be millions of people with no insurance, so was the problem even really solved?


If this were to occur and a public option was instituted and subsequently buckled under its own weight, we'd lose the ability to push for universal healthcare for the next...3 decades at least. Any time you'd bring it up, conservatives (and moderates) would just say "we tried that already in 2020, don't you remember? It failed!"...Again, kind of like what they say about Obamacare now haha.

If he were elected, he'd have to go for a plan like Pete's because that's the only thing that would pass. The difference is Pete's plan actually said "this is a way to show Americans the benefit of medicare for all and would force private insurance to compete or die" and stated that the end goal was for this to be a backdoor for medicare for all.

I am not going to contest the fact that the industry has issues and we would benefit from a drastic overhaul, but I am a fairly knowledgable and rational person. Most people aren't. Tell them you're removing all private insurance and they'll freak out. 

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 04:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am not going to contest the fact that the industry has issues and we would benefit from a drastic overhaul, but I am a fairly knowledgable and rational person. Most people aren't. Tell them you're removing all private insurance and they'll freak out. 

I think the best solution to that would be for Democrats to stop framing it that way then :).

Instead of "removing," you could use the word "replacing" and be more correct. But Amy and Pete had not done this because they wanted to make his plan seem more terrifying than it is.

For what it's worth, I'm aware M4A wouldn't pass and that we'd likely end up with something closer to an expansion of the ACA or another public option.

I would just prefer we start at M4A and work our way back (since all bills are pulled to the center/to the opposite direction once in Congress), rather than start at the compromise and be pulled further right, potentially to complete inaction.

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-04-2020, 02:59 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not certain whether or not Bernie would actually get rid of insurance companies or just render them obsolete.



I'm pretty sure there'd still be private insurance companies if M4A were passed. They'd probably just be supplement programs to, for example, skip the "line" for non-emergency surgeries and the like.

Maybe he will phase them out over time except for non-emergency / "skip the line" scenarios.

Quote:But regarding the middle man that is sucking money out of the system without providing any meaningful value? Yea, I don't mind them going extinct.

Agreed.

Quote:The concern I have with the public option is that the majority of people who currently have insurance through their employer are not necessarily going to go with "Medicare for all who want it" over their private insurance for a variety of reasons, whether that be uncertainty of the new system or just general inertia to the familiar. Why risk a new healthcare system when you have one that you know, at the very least, won't bankrupt you?

 
I don't see the applicability of this point because ( unless I'm mistaken) Bernie doesn't propose the "all who want it" option. His is an across the board M4A proposal. There's a risk with a new system, yes, but why would it bankrupt an individual? Is Bernie proposing a cap on coverage after which you pay out of pocket personally? And even if that was the case, most private insurance policies have a cap anyway, so why would there be any more risk for individual bankruptcy?

Quote:If the public option is not taken on, en masse, by working, healthy people who are already getting private insurance through their employer, that would leave the system to only insure the most unhealthy and/or oldest people in the country, who may not have access to insurance any other way.

See previous comment. This would not be an issue when Bernie will pay for his system from tax dollars. I am not clear on whether that's possible, but that's the claim in theory. Unless there is some assumption that you want spell out, reading your post at face value leads me to think that existing Medicare should cover a majority of these cases. Probably people who are not yet of retirement age and therefore ineligible for Medicare (I could be wrong about eligibility being 65 or older) might add costs after leaving their private insurance plans. In theory, these costs should be offset by the taxes paid by everyone (including the young and healthy, who will mostly not add much in terms of costs) and by cutting out the administrative cost of middle men. I am not arguing for M4A, but just laying out how it would theoretically address the point you made above.

Quote:The way an insurance system works is that the young, healthy and active members spend into the system but don't use it very often (because they are young and healthy) and offset the costs of the older, less healthy people who also pay into it, but use it more often.



I think there's a very high risk that only unhealthy and old people will take the public option, leaving the system extremely bloated (because the premiums being paid in are not offsetting the costs of the healthcare given to the unhealthy and old people) and is, therefore, extremely expensive. As it gets more expensive, premiums and deductibles go up.

 
I think my previous comment applies here also.

Quote:It's my understanding that this was essentially what happened to Obamacare, with the system being overloaded with "uninsurable" people who were expensive to cover, but young, relatively healthy people who were previously uninsured often decided to just take the penalty instead, as it was cheaper than having insurance that they didn't think they'd need.



As the public option bloats (with expensive patients and relatively few cheap patients), the more expensive it gets and the less capable it is of competing with private insurers. This ultimately defeats the entire purpose of the proposal.


So how do you convince already insured people/healthy people to buy into a new system, in order to keep the costs balanced?

In theory, there is no more penalty option, because the taxes will be levied on all working folks and proportionate to their income. So while the system will get funded, the young and healthy will still use up a very small portion of it. The older folks who currently use Medicare will hopefully use the new system the same way and add no more significant new costs. ( I'm not sure if these are too simplistic and I'm missing something). This would leave the middle aged folks to be covered with: their own taxes, the largely unused portion of young folks' taxes and savings by cutting out middlemen. In theory.

Quote:Plus, there's the most obvious problem with the public option that it doesn't cover people who can't afford insurance. The people who can't afford a monthly premium, or are unwilling to pay one because they think they don't need it, before having a catastrophic injury and going bankrupt.



So there will still be millions of people with no insurance, so was the problem even really solved?

 
I'm guessing people who don't have income or make enough to be taxed will be funded by the taxes on everyone else into the system. Kinda like welfare and other things. I'll say it again, I'm not advocating for or against M4A, unless the numbers make sense, but that's the theoretical reply. I guess Bernie would say that cutting out insurance companies from most of health care is good enough to get everybody covered nicely and still save the middle class tax payer money while not hindering the economy based on higher taxes on the wealthy. IMO, it remains to be seem if that's true.

Quote:If this were to occur and a public option was instituted and subsequently buckled under its own weight, we'd lose the ability to push for universal healthcare for the next...3 decades at least. Any time you'd bring it up, conservatives (and moderates) would just say "we tried that already in 2020, don't you remember? It failed!"...Again, kind of like what they say about Obamacare now haha.

Agreed. If this is shown to not work for whatever reason, including properly planned implementation ( even if theoretically sound), I would say the idea will be DOA for longer than 30 years.

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 06:26 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Maybe he will phase them out over time except for non-emergency / "skip the line" scenarios.


Agreed.

 
I don't see the applicability of this point because ( unless I'm mistaken) Bernie doesn't propose the "all who want it" option. His is an across the board M4A proposal. There's a risk with a new system, yes, but why would it bankrupt an individual? Is Bernie proposing a cap on coverage after which you pay out of pocket personally? And even if that was the case, most private insurance policies have a cap anyway, so why would there be any more risk for individual bankruptcy?


See previous comment. This would not be an issue when Bernie will pay for his system from tax dollars. I am not clear on whether that's possible, but that's the claim in theory. Unless there is some assumption that you want spell out, reading your post at face value leads me to think that existing Medicare should cover a majority of these cases. Probably people who are not yet of retirement age and therefore ineligible for Medicare (I could be wrong about eligibility being 65 or older) might add costs after leaving their private insurance plans. In theory, these costs should be offset by the taxes paid by everyone (including the young and healthy, who will mostly not add much in terms of costs) and by cutting out the administrative cost of middle men. I am not arguing for M4A, but just laying out how it would theoretically address the point you made above.

 
I think my previous comment applies here also.


In theory, there is no more penalty option, because the taxes will be levied on all working folks and proportionate to their income. So while the system will get funded, the young and healthy will still use up a very small portion of it. The older folks who currently use Medicare will hopefully use the new system the same way and add no more significant new costs. ( I'm not sure if these are too simplistic and I'm missing something). This would leave the middle aged folks to be covered with: their own taxes, the largely unused portion of young folks' taxes and savings by cutting out middlemen. In theory.

 
I'm guessing people who don't have income or make enough to be taxed will be funded by the taxes on everyone else into the system. Kinda like welfare and other things. I'll say it again, I'm not advocating for or against M4A, unless the numbers make sense, but that's the theoretical reply. I guess Bernie would say that cutting out insurance companies from most of health care is good enough to get everybody covered nicely and still save the middle class tax payer money while not hindering the economy based on higher taxes on the wealthy. IMO, it remains to be seem if that's true.


Agreed. If this is shown to not work for whatever reason, including properly planned implementation ( even if theoretically sound), I would say the idea will be DOA for longer than 30 years.

I'm comparing M4A to the public option. 

Rereading my comment I can see that my formatting doesn't make that as clear as I thought Haha. 

[Goalpost]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=united+healthcare+stock+price&form=EDGSPH&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&plvar=0&refig=f3a775aed8c343259f5b01394da16447&PC=NMTS&sp=1&ghc=1&qs=SC&pq=united+healthcre+st&sk=PRES1&sc=8-19&cvid=f3a775aed8c343259f5b01394da16447&cc=US&setlang=en-US

United Healthcare's stock popped 10 percent today based on Biden's victories.

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2020, 05:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the best solution to that would be for Democrats to stop framing it that way then :).

Instead of "removing," you could use the word "replacing" and be more correct. But Amy and Pete had not done this because they wanted to make his plan seem more terrifying than it is.

For what it's worth, I'm aware M4A wouldn't pass and that we'd likely end up with something closer to an expansion of the ACA or another public option.

I would just prefer we start at M4A and work our way back (since all bills are pulled to the center/to the opposite direction once in Congress), rather than start at the compromise and be pulled further right, potentially to complete inaction.

I don’t know if that’s more correct, it’s just semantics that ends with no private insurance.

I also don’t get the argument that you have to start at the extreme end for a few reasons. The first is that Republicans know a majority of Democrats don’t even support it so it’s DOA. The second is that enough people are saying this so Republicans know it’s not a sincere starting point.

[CJD]

(03-05-2020, 12:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don’t know if that’s more correct, it’s just semantics that ends with no private insurance.

I also don’t get the argument that you have to start at the extreme end for a few reasons. The first is that Republicans know a majority of Democrats don’t even support it so it’s DOA. The second is that enough people are saying this so Republicans know it’s not a sincere starting point.

Well, it's semantics where one has a clearly negative connotation ("Bernie wants to take something from you!") whereas the other is either a neutral or positive connotation ("Bernie wants to replace your price gouging private insurance with a more affordable, more expansive public insurance").

As far as the starting farther than what you actually expect to get...it's just a negotiation tool. It's like when you get newly hired from the job and they offer you $50,000. You counter with $60,000, not necessarily because you expect that they just say "okay" but more because you know that if you ask for $60k, they will counter at $55k, which is about what you wanted anyway.

If you start with a counteroffer of $55k, then they'll counter with $52.5k.

It's just a general principal that you should ALWAYS ask for more than you think you can get. It's a framing device. In politics, you can think of it similarly to how you think of the Overton window. 

Asking for more than you think you can get (or doing more than you think you can get away with) is, quite literally, how the Overton window shifts. Trump has been doing it for 3 years for social issues. Bernie has been doing it for 3 years with medical coverage. Without Bernie pushing for Universal Healthcare in 2016, we probably would not be talking about a comprehensive public option as a possibility in 2020.

There's no reason to stop pushing the window left now.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-04-2020, 11:14 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 1.6 trillion to cancel all current student debt. 600 billion to make public colleges free again.

I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything regarding private colleges, but I'm not positive. I believe Bernie only worries about public colleges and their cost.

So less than the cost of an unnecessary war in Iraq waged on false pretenses.