US Politics: Biden vs. Trump and Corona, Thunderdome Society at Its Very Best

[Pecan]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

They don't get behind it because it has projected costs of $35 trillion and it polls about at 50-55%. 

Right, but more money will be spent on the private system. It's like $50 or $55 trillion over ten years I think, and when the system remains fractured like that, there's really no way to drive costs down. The right will argue for the free market, but we know enough now to know that the free market doesn't exist in healthcare, other than in elective procedures like cosmetic surgery.

[Guest]

Just now, Triskele said:

Get your government hand off my Medicare.  

Exactly.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Right. Good luck on educating the American public on all the nuances of public healthcare systems in other countries. 

That's the point - you shouldn't! Don't bother doing that until you're elected. Don't bother coming up with the UHC plan until then, because all it does is open you up for attack. 

If you want to do something that preserves the industry you can do that and have UHC via something like the Switzerland model, but don't actually say 'we are going to take away your current insurance' because that scares the absolute FUCK out of people. Say as little about it as you can get away with, honestly. 

Because for the most part, people don't care when you're campaigning. They want the poetry, not the prose.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Pecan said:

Right, but more money will be spent on the private system. It's like $50 or $55 trillion over ten years I think, and when the system remains fractured like that, there's really no way to drive costs down. The right will argue for the free market, but we know enough now to know that the free market doesn't exist in healthcare, other than in elective procedures like cosmetic surgery.

Not even then, honestly.

I'm not remotely arguing here. These are all entirely accurate points. But taking $50 trillion from the private sector and putting $35 T into government hands is a massive ask for US politicians, no matter how accurate it is. You asked why dems aren't behind M4A lock stock and barrel - and that's a big reason. It's not super popular (especially Sanders' version) and it is easily attacked. 

[Altherion]

14 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Well, there hasn't been one. Clinton and Obama were both centrists, and of course Obama got together with Clyburn to kneecap Sanders. I hope Democrats enjoy another 4 years of Trump and losing the Supreme Court and the Judiciary for the next quarter century because Biden is going to lose hard. 

The only way Biden is going to lose is if that allegation against him comes back with either irrefutable proof (i.e. a video) or there is a multitude of others or there is some other game-changing scandal involving him close to the election. It does not matter that he is not the most exciting candidate in the world; given his opponent and the current environment, a Democrat has to be merely borderline acceptable to easily win.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

See above. Universal healthcare as a goal is significantly more popular than M4A, and the more you get into the details the less popular M4A becomes. Heck, even single payer is less specific. 

This is a trap.

Moderate candidates can talk all the happy claptrap magical thinking bullshit they want, and no one calls them out on it. Not the media, no one. Because they have an incentive to keep things status quo.

When a progressive starts making noise, they get attacked for being unrealistic, and have to create hugely elaborate, detailed policies that the media and moderates pick apart and decry as realistic. It's deliberately designed to be a catch-22.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's the point - you shouldn't! Don't bother doing that until you're elected. Don't bother coming up with the UHC plan until then, because all it does is open you up for attack. 

If you want to do something that preserves the industry you can do that and have UHC via something like the Switzerland model, but don't actually say 'we are going to take away your current insurance' because that scares the absolute FUCK out of people. Say as little about it as you can get away with, honestly. 

Because for the most part, people don't care when you're campaigning. They want the poetry, not the prose.

This is a trap.

Moderate candidates can talk all the happy claptrap magical thinking bullshit they want, and no one calls them out on it. Not the media, no one. Because they have an incentive to keep things status quo.

When a progressive starts making noise, they get attacked for being unrealistic, and have to create hugely elaborate, detailed policies that the media and moderates pick apart and decry as realistic. It's deliberately designed to be a catch-22.

[Pecan]

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You haven't really shown why a more left Democrat would win. There is no model for a left Democrat to win, because as you astutely admitted, no one ever has. So why is Bernie different? He couldn't even beat sad-ass Joe Biden.

I don't think it's a slam dunk but the argument on the left is voter enthusiasm that simply is lacking for Biden or any of the other mainstream candidates. Of course, centrist Dems could cross over to the Republican candidate or simply stay home. Could definitely happen. But Biden almost certainly won't win. He's just terribly weak. Thanks Obama!

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Pecan said:

I don't think it's a slam dunk but the argument on the left is voter enthusiasm that simply is lacking for Biden or any of the other mainstream candidates. Of course, centrist Dems could cross over to the Republican candidate or simply stay home. Could definitely happen. But Biden almost certainly won't win. He's just terribly weak. Thanks Obama!

What is backing up this idea? Because I'm not seeing it in any of the data?

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Pecan said:

I don't think it's a slam dunk but the argument on the left is voter enthusiasm that simply is lacking for Biden or any of the other mainstream candidates. Of course, centrist Dems could cross over to the Republican candidate or simply stay home. Could definitely happen. But Biden almost certainly won't win. He's just terribly weak. Thanks Obama!

The voters who voted for Bernie were certainly very enthusiastic. There just weren't very many of them.

Did you ever bother to acknowledge how silly it was to ask what a centrist Dem has ever accomplished? Just about every expansion of the social welfare system was accomplished by a centrist Dem.

[Larry of the Lawn]

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Other than the massive medicaid expansion? I mean, seriously, that was by far the real win. 

Which is why Biden and other liberals have consistently championed improvements to it?

About half of them have insurance now that didn't. That again, is not enough. But it is something. Is it so hard to acknowledge that it actually did some good?

The civil rights act was the incrementalist approach. The converse to that was Malcolm X's approach. 

Women's suffrage is interesting, but I suspect wouldn't have happened unless WW1 happened. Or the spanish flu.

Labor laws and social security? Great depression results. 

Honestly? Maybe 2050. Maybe never. The forces aligned against it are pretty strong, and the US is almost certainly illiberal and undemocratic and is going to get worse. It would take a massive disaster - far worse than the novel coronavirus - to make people change significantly. 

By 2050 we'll probably have such a changed world that one of two things will occur - the US will either be entirely neo-feudalistic, or will have enough agitation to be able to bring about strong social reform. I don't know which happens, but probably not before then. 

Well, let's see where things stand in another couple months when there are another few million more uninsured people.

Would still love for @Tywin et al. to answer the question of what a realistic timeline or pathway to universal healthcare would be.

[Pecan]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What's M4A? Is that Bernie's healthcare plan? If it is, I'll say what I've said before: I loath our employer sponsored healthcare system. And I would be happy to see it go away. That said, pulling the electorate's employer sponsored healthcare all at once involves huge risk. Add to it, there will likely be a few bugs when the system starts, pissing people off even more, even if it eventually turns out alright.

By all means get universal healthcare done. And have a public option too. I think that is politically doable. But, in my view, yanking everyone's employer sponsored healthcare at once is asking for trouble.

I think any common sense implementation would phase it in over time. I think that's in the actual bill, though I could be wrong.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, let's see where things stand in another couple months when there are another few million more uninsured people.

Would still love for @Tywin et al. to answer the question of what a realistic timeline or pathway to universal healthcare would be.

Political necessity, of course.

Do you think it's something I oppose?

I am the wealthy brat who has said we should do away with money after all, but we must be practical about things. 

[Pecan]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The only way Biden is going to lose is if that allegation against him comes back with either irrefutable proof (i.e. a video) or there is a multitude of others or there is some other game-changing scandal involving him close to the election. It does not matter that he is not the most exciting candidate in the world; given his opponent and the current environment, a Democrat has to be merely borderline acceptable to easily win.

It matters that every time he talks it's obvious that he's in mental decline. It's terribly, terribly obvious. He's a shell of what he was 4 years ago.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Pecan said:

I think any common sense implementation would phase it in over time. I think that's in the actual bill, though I could be wrong.

The best way to deal with employer sponsored care is to feed it a little bit of arsenic here and a little bit of arsenic there, until finally it keels over. In my view the the phasing in part should be rather lengthy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Political necessity, of course.

Do you think it's something I oppose?

I am the wealthy brat who has said we should do away with money after all, but we must be practical about things. 

That's not really an answer, but thanks?

[ThinkerX]

8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, let's see where things stand in another couple months when there are another few million more uninsured people.

Would still love for @Tywin et al. to answer the question of what a realistic timeline or pathway to universal healthcare would be.

Republicans get lynched - possibly literally.  They take the direct hit for removing insurance from millions of people who bought said insurance legally and in good faith.   Get called 'murderers' in every campaign add, many of which feature republican voters dying because of this move.

 

Ironically the best option for republicans to save themselves from this self inflicted catastrophe might very well be a massive medicaid/medicare expansion of some sort.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

That's not really an answer, but thanks?

No, it's the precise answer. Or please explain to me why I am wrong. 

[Pecan]

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The voters who voted for Bernie were certainly very enthusiastic. There just weren't very many of them.

Did you ever bother to acknowledge how silly it was to ask what a centrist Dem has ever accomplished? Just about every expansion of the social welfare system was accomplished by a centrist Dem.

The ACA exists. I knew that when I posed the question. I just don't think it's a very good program. Maybe I should have added "in the last 50 years" to my question because I'm not going back to Roosevelt and LBJ. Those were very different times.

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, Pecan said:

It matters that every time he talks it's obvious that he's in mental decline. It's terribly, terribly obvious. He's a shell of what he was 4 years ago. 

It's clearly not obvious enough for him to lose the primary so I don't see why it would be different for the general election.