US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Are you serious? Saying that a type of primary is favorable or advantageous to a particular candidate is not the same as saying it's the sole reason they will win said primary. 

[aceluby]

39 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It's a fairly large increase though. And the problem for Sanders' plan is that even his supporters appear unwilling to make that sacrifice:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

 

Which has nothing to do with what I was saying.  I'm saying that in the scenario provided that I believe 39 people with jobs and one without, and all have health insurance is better than 40 people with jobs and none have health insurance.  

I don't particularly care how 'fairly large' the increase is if the end result matches the hypothetical provided.  And I don't care how 'unwilling' his supporters are to along with it.  If the math works out to be roughly what lokisnow has calculated, I think there is still a HUGE benefit for the people he was mostly concerned about and that the plan seems pretty solid.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

It's a fairly large increase though. And the problem for Sanders' plan is that even his supporters appear unwilling to make that sacrifice:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

 

I can get past the tax thing, assuming it would bring us universal HC (hella assumption, I know), but his model is also based on assumed 5+% growth for 4 years straight.  That is a fucking fantasy.

 

"Yes, you totally can afford this vacation home, let me show you how.  First we assume your income will grow by at least 5% every year."

[lokisnow]

Well I said twenty employees not forty, so a five percent labor reduction for your example not a 2.5%

it would be a one time effect to get through the first year, I guess, with additional layoffs and deferred wage increases in subsequent years until the 6% increase for the remaining perpetual employees has been absorbed and accounted for as other employer side payroll taxes are.

also most employers calculate the cost of labor when hiring so the long term effect is that employers offer lower wages and fewer jobs so they can afford the new tax, so a slightly tighter labor market probably offset in the aggregate by an increase in the health care labor pool.

on the other hand the permanent reduction in health insurance labor market is probably not recoverable.

again, the benefit is obviously good, so long as you're not the one losing your job (being unemployed is worse than being uninsured), but the initial shock is really high.

additionally, all countries with single payer have very tight cost controls on health care labor and health care products. In order to sustain single payer we will have to implement the same and 6% is not sufficient to pay our current health care labor costs. How will doctors take a fifty to seventy percent cut in compensation? How will nurses take a twenty five percent cut in compensation? Politically, how do you pass price controls and labor reductions like that? What do you do about the student loan debt outstanding for all the doctors and nurses that can no longer service their debt under the new regime? What do you do about the medical schools responsible for that debt as they will still be continuing to churn out graduates with now unsustainable debt loads?

 

i suppose we could nationalize the medical schools and debt jubilee away the debts, but that could all go very sour very quickly.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are you serious? Saying that a type of primary is favorable or advantageous to a particular candidate is not the same as saying it's the sole reason they will win said primary. 

And if you had said that, I'd agree. That's not what you said. You said that she won "because they were closed primaries'. That is basically saying that it is the sole reason that they won. 

 

Quote

I don't particularly care how 'fairly large' the increase is if the end result matches the hypothetical provided.  And I don't care how 'unwilling' his supporters are to along with it.  If the math works out to be roughly what lokisnow has calculated, I think there is still a HUGE benefit for the people he was mostly concerned about and that the plan seems pretty solid.

I tend to agree. It is, however, a pretty hard sell to tell constituents that they're going to increase unemployment by 4-5% in order to get better health care, and they're also likely going to decrease their wage a bit. And that's on the democratic side; can you imagine any republican agreeing to this?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if you had said that, I'd agree. That's not what you said. You said that she won "because they were closed primaries'. That is basically saying that it is the sole reason that they won. 

Except I never said that, and the last two times you quoted me I said exactly what you said you'd agree with. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Except I never said that, and the last two times you quoted me I said exactly what you said you'd agree with. 

You're right, that wasn't a precise quote. It's this one, which is just as bad.

Quote

No, it's not. HRC went 7-2 in closed primaries because they favor party insiders and long time supporters. 

I don't agree with this statement. HRC was helped by the closed primaries - maybe (Obama isn't exactly antiestablishment) - but many other factors that were a lot bigger of a deal came into play in those contests. But saying that she went 7-2 in closed primaries BECAUSE they favor party insiders? No, that's bullshit. She went 7-2 in closed primaries because of what states those 7 states were, when they were in the election cycle, and who she was running against. 

Again, independents did not particularly favor Obama in 2008, certainly not like they do Sanders. Obama's election success was predicated on massive turnout and massive support from minorities. It was not on self-identifying independents. It wasn't solely in caucuses, either (though he tended to do better for similar reasons as Sanders does). And the reason Clinton went 7-2 in closed primaries was not because they favor party insiders and long-time supporters. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're right, that wasn't a precise quote. It's this one, which is just as bad.

I don't agree with this statement. HRC was helped by the closed primaries - maybe (Obama isn't exactly antiestablishment) - but many other factors that were a lot bigger of a deal came into play in those contests. But saying that she went 7-2 in closed primaries BECAUSE they favor party insiders? No, that's bullshit. She went 7-2 in closed primaries because of what states those 7 states were, when they were in the election cycle, and who she was running against. 

Again, I never said it was BECAUSE. That's you dude. I said they favor party insiders and long time supporters. That's a far cry from saying, "She won because it's a closed primary." Hell, in that very quote you recognized that I said she did not win every state that has a closed primary.

I just went back and read every quote of mine. Here are the relevant ones:

On 4/20/2016 at 9:21 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Kal, this is basic poli sci. Closed primaries were advantageous to Clinton in 08 and 16 just like the caucuses have been advantageous to Sanders.

 

On 4/19/2016 at 4:31 PM, Tywin et al. said:

No, it's not. HRC went 7-2 in closed primaries because they favor party insiders and long time supporters. And as I said before, I have no problems with closed primaries if they had same day registration, which unfortunately none of them do. New voters who don't know the rules but want to participate in the democratic process get turned away, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. 

Also of note is that Obama won the only two places of the eleven with same day registration (the two caucus states). 

Now here's this:

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are you serious? Saying that a type of primary is favorable or advantageous to a particular candidate is not the same as saying it's the sole reason they will win said primary. 

To which you replied:

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if you had said that, I'd agree. That's not what you said. You said that she won "because they were closed primaries'. That is basically saying that it is the sole reason that they won. 

You're just wrong here Kal. And there is nothing controversial about what I said. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, I never said it was BECAUSE. That's you dude. I said they favor party insiders and long time supporters. That's a far cry from saying, "She won because it's a closed primary." Hell, in that very quote you recognized that I said she did not win every state that has a closed primary.

You said this:  "HRC went 7-2 in closed primaries because"

That's not me, dude. You even quoted that again and then bolded 'favor'. Apparently you didn't read the because part? 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're just wrong here Kal. And there is nothing controversial about what I said. 

Except for the thing that you said that you think you didn't actually say, yeah, I'd agree. 

[lokisnow]

FTR, I'm for single payer but I hate Sanders' funding mechanism. it is an insufficient amount, and making it almost entirely employer side is enormously burdensome and potentially very harmful to the poorest cohorts of our labor force.

if it were 6% in total, shared equally by employer and employee, I would support the principle, but protest the insufficiency.

and more importantly it does nothing to address the health care provider labor costs. and without massively reforming and reducing and permanently capping those costs--like other single payer countries--single payer is not  viable long term. It just is not. Single Payer is 100% unsustainable without it.

[The Anti-Targ]

Single payer healthcare in the USA is a pipe dream for the forseeable future, partly because a lot of democrats don't even believe it is a desireable thing. But if people want to get there eventually, electing more people like Sanders who are unashamedly socialist in their thinking on healthcare and very vocal about it, and talk about how it might be made to work, could eventually turn enough people around to it. Even though HRC supports the concept of single payer healthcare, IMO she is not the candidate to help move the USA further in that direction.

[BloodRider]

27 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Single payer healthcare in the USA is a pipe dream for the forseeable future, partly because a lot of democrats don't even believe it is a desireable thing. But if people want to get there eventually, electing more people like Sanders who are unashamedly socialist in their thinking on healthcare and very vocal about it, and talk about how it might be made to work, could eventually turn enough people around to it. Even though HRC supports the concept of single payer healthcare, IMO she is not the candidate to help move the USA further in that direction.

Let me guess, you are less than 35 years old.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Let me guess, you are less than 35 years old.

Bad guess.

[BloodRider]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Bad guess.

Fair enough.  Are you just not familiar with all the work she did on UHC in the early 90s?

[IamMe90]

13 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Fair enough.  Are you just not familiar with all the work she did on UHC in the early 90s?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

"... She added, 'People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.'..." 

Since you all have spent so much time & effort defending both the sincerity, and the direction of HRC's shifts on political issues, I think you should realize that her position on single payer healthcare has "evolved" and accept that that's really the best position to take, since HRC's shifts are apparently always in the right direction. 

[BloodRider]

48 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

"... She added, 'People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.'..." 

Since you all have spent so much time & effort defending both the sincerity, and the direction of HRC's shifts on political issues, I think you should realize that her position on single payer healthcare has "evolved" and accept that that's really the best position to take, since HRC's shifts are apparently always in the right direction. 

You are completely misrepresenting what she said.  

[IamMe90]

4 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

You are completely misrepresenting what she said.  

The implication is pretty clear: she thinks that single payer healthcare is a good (better) idea than private healthcare, but she also thinks that it will never happen. She literally used the words "never, ever."  

That's a pretty stark contrast to "... I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system... I don't even think it's a close call politically."

Maybe her views on the viability of single payer healthcare have evolved. 

[BloodRider]

9 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

The implication is pretty clear: she thinks that single payer healthcare is a good (better) idea than private healthcare, but she also thinks that it will never happen. She literally used the words "never, ever."  

That's a pretty stark contrast to "... I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system... I don't even think it's a close call politically."

Maybe her views on the viability of single payer healthcare have evolved. 

Seems to me like she is saying that UHC is nigh impossible, and in the meantime ACA is a great accomplishment and we actually have it in place.  And she should know, as she fought for UHC for decades.

Is it your contention that she would veto UHC?

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

The implication is pretty clear: she thinks that single payer healthcare is a good (better) idea than private healthcare, but she also thinks that it will never happen. She literally used the words "never, ever."  

That's a pretty stark contrast to "... I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system... I don't even think it's a close call politically."

Maybe her views on the viability of single payer healthcare have evolved. 

Well, look what happened with HillaryCare. It's now 16 years since the date she thought the US would have single payer. I think she's likely changed her opinion on the political viability of getting it done given she's been trying to get it done for a long time now.

So mostly I'm not sure what your issue here is.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, BloodRider said:

Fair enough.  Are you just not familiar with all the work she did on UHC in the early 90s?

Did you even read what I wrote? What Hillary thinks and wants re UHC is not at issue. It's what she's prepared to do and say to keep pushing the ideal that's the issue. I don't think she'll do anything to push it forward if she becomes president. Bernie as president would at least, I think, keep it as a key policy platform and keep it in the public mind. He will never achieve it even if he's fortunate enough to be president for 2 terms. But he will do more to push the discussion in that direction than Hillary.

TBH the only way UHC really ever becomes a reality in the USA in my lifetime is if a moderate republican president is elected who believes in UHC and there is a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, and enough moderate republican sentaors not to filibuster it. Which is to say, probably not in my lifetime.

Which is also to say that people should think long and hard about how much they want to base their vote on each Democratic candidate's current public statements about UHC.