| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25086
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Personally lean toward Biden after Beto stunk it up early on but in LG, among Dems or the left, the one candidate getting negative comments constantly is Bernie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point of the article is that Sanders strips the entire context of the comments, so 18 second clips don't really prove much . . . especially when the source of the the clips is Sirota, whose reputation for honesty and and integrity is not exactly stellar.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
The point of the article is that Sanders strips the entire context of the comments, so 18 second clips don't really prove much . . . especially when the source of the the clips is Sirota, whose reputation for honesty and and integrity is not exactly stellar. |
It seems like the Biden campaign is trying to score points on a technicality and twist his record. The overall evidence against him is pretty inarguable and compelling. He was hardly shy about his intentions.
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if Biden had wanted to cut social security, he doesnt now. I'm sure Biden had many different opinions than he does now over the 40 years he had been in politics, and the same can be said for anyone who was alive in the 70s, 80s, 90s etc. We want our politicians to both be forever consistent in their positions while, at the same time, willing to make objective decisions based on the best, most up to date evidence/data. We cant have both yet conveniently act like we can whenever it suits our needs to attack a political opponent. It's the greatest hypocrisy of the electorate.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | The middle class will have to help pay for M4A. But the key is they'll be paying less than they do now.
It's okay to criticize Warren for backing off a hardline stance for immediate implementation.
Just like it's okay to note that Bernie has accomplished very little compared to his time in the Senate because he's taken so many hardline stances without building the necessary coalition. |
Not necessarily. I pay $600 per year for excellent insurance for my family. I highly doubt M4A will beat that, which is why I support Public Option over M4A |
As a whole. The middle class will pay less than they do now if we change healthcare to M4A.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | The middle class will have to help pay for M4A. But the key is they'll be paying less than they do now.
It's okay to criticize Warren for backing off a hardline stance for immediate implementation.
Just like it's okay to note that Bernie has accomplished very little compared to his time in the Senate because he's taken so many hardline stances without building the necessary coalition. |
Not necessarily. I pay $600 per year for excellent insurance for my family. I highly doubt M4A will beat that, which is why I support Public Option over M4A |
As a whole. The middle class will pay less than they do now if we change healthcare to M4A. |
And there will be those who would be hurt if the option for private insurance is abolished. I am not against the idea if ridding private insurance, but given the way our government as a whole runs, the chances of that happening in a timely fashion without damaging implications for many citizens is nil.
So the logical compromise is to work toward affordable public health for those who want/need it and keep the option open for those who would prefer to take advantage of the private plans they have. As has been pointed out many times, if the government can mange to come up with a system that surpasses what the private companies can offer, then the phasing out of private insurance will inevitably occur on its own.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I’m with Mule on the how, which is in many ways more important than the what. Strengthen the ACA, including regulating against the gouging of individuals (the same way it regulated against the gouging or denial of people with pre-existing conditions), create a public option. Those are all doable.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | The middle class will have to help pay for M4A. But the key is they'll be paying less than they do now.
It's okay to criticize Warren for backing off a hardline stance for immediate implementation.
Just like it's okay to note that Bernie has accomplished very little compared to his time in the Senate because he's taken so many hardline stances without building the necessary coalition. |
Not necessarily. I pay $600 per year for excellent insurance for my family. I highly doubt M4A will beat that, which is why I support Public Option over M4A |
As a whole. The middle class will pay less than they do now if we change healthcare to M4A. |
And there will be those who would be hurt if the option for private insurance is abolished. I am not against the idea if ridding private insurance, but given the way our government as a whole runs, the chances of that happening in a timely fashion without damaging implications for many citizens is nil.
So the logical compromise is to work toward affordable public health for those who want/need it and keep the option open for those who would prefer to take advantage of the private plans they have. As has been pointed out many times, if the government can mange to come up with a system that surpasses what the private companies can offer, then the phasing out of private insurance will inevitably occur on its own. |
The problem with that is. You need everybody including the young and healthy to pay into system as well to make it affordable. Obama talked about it on a podcast late 2016. I think it was the last podcast of Keeping it 1600.
Can't have a system with only poor and unhealthy people paying a fraction of what the services cost. You need people who don't need the healthcare services paying into the system as well to balance out the cost.
Also uniformity in coverage is a key aspect in reducing cost. You make sure all doctors have the same incentives to utilize preventative treatments. And that reduces costs overall.
I also don't think worries of poor implementation is a good enough excuse not to pursue it either. Same goes for tax plans. That's not an argument against the plan/idea. It's an argument for making sure you implement the system as good as possible and constantly improve upon it.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: |
Can't have a system with only poor and unhealthy people paying a fraction of what the services cost. You need people who don't need the healthcare services paying into the system as well to balance out the cost. |
But your contention is that the preponderance of middle class people would also benefit, so that wouldn't be the case, they'd be paying. Meanwhile, Public Option still provides those who would be hurt to not be forced to participate.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: |
I also don't think worries of poor implementation is a good enough excuse not to pursue it either. Same goes for tax plans. That's not an argument against the plan/idea. It's an argument for making sure you implement the system as good as possible and constantly improve upon it. |
I don't mind paying more in taxes for something that makes sense for everyone and there are plenty of things this country needs to spend that money on that don't require people to needlessly sacrifice good coverage (something that also serves as one of their benefits to their job) when you can implement plans that don't require doing so that you can improve on - as has been said. Start ACA improvements that are successful and pretty soon private insurance is going to disappear on it's own if M4A is actually viable. The idea that the only way you can have a plan and improve on it is to abolish private insurance just isn't true. If the only way to make a plan work is to force it down everyone's throat, it's obviously flawed from the inception.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having sold insurance I know companies are only interested in their bottom line. I think the way to go is to work with the Affordable Care Act. Reeling in pharmaceuticals should be a priority. The cost to produce a drug compared to what it cost consumers to purchase is way out of line. I don't know if it's feasible but using Medicare as a template should be examined.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13727
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You only said you pay $600 per year, which is $50 per month, for the entire family. Is that it? No deductibles, co-pays, and other out of pocket expenses? What about long hospital stays, etc?
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | Even if Biden had wanted to cut social security, he doesnt now. I'm sure Biden had many different opinions than he does now over the 40 years he had been in politics, and the same can be said for anyone who was alive in the 70s, 80s, 90s etc. We want our politicians to both be forever consistent in their positions while, at the same time, willing to make objective decisions based on the best, most up to date evidence/data. We cant have both yet conveniently act like we can whenever it suits our needs to attack a political opponent. It's the greatest hypocrisy of the electorate. |
Exactly. And Bernie has things in his past that don't reflect well to the Left these days when it comes to some of his positions in the past, such as guns for example.
I care much less about what people used to believe than I do their ability to be aware of what the current situation is and evolve accordingly.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | You only said you pay $600 per year, which is $50 per month, for the entire family. Is that it? No deductibles, co-pays, and other out of pocket expenses? What about long hospital stays, etc? |
Minor copays on some of my kids meds amounting to a few dollars a month per. My daughter had a severe compound fracture when she was 9 that required 3 different surgeries over 18 months. Didn't pay a penny. My wife had elbow reconstruction a few years ago. The procedure was expense free, though I think we paid a small fee for some of her pain meds post surgery. My son has been going to an endocrinologist for the last few years to address concerns regarding his growth. That's covered, as well as the required labs he has done every couple of months.
The only meaningful expense I have had in recent years was for a portion of elective treatment with a dermatologist I have been going to for decades and that was only because he was out of network.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Black Mothers Keep Dying After Giving Birth
| Quote: | | What's more, even relatively well-off black women like Shalon Irving die and nearly die at higher rates than whites. Again, New York City offers a startling example: A 2016 analysis of five years of data found that black, college-educated mothers who gave birth in local hospitals were more likely to suffer severe complications of pregnancy or childbirth than white women who never graduated from high school. |
NPR 2017
Reducing income inequality should be a key goal of any Democratic Party candidate, and addressing structural racism via economic policy can have profound effects, but minimizing or eliding the historical sociopolitical (and cultural) foundations of American racism in pursuit of a purely political economic solution is anti-intersectionality and has a higher probability of failing American racial and ethnic minorities if American history is any guide. How does Bernie Sanders propose to address structural racism via policy other than a "rising (socialist) tide will lift all boats?"
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Having sold insurance I know companies are only interested in their bottom line. I think the way to go is to work with the Affordable Care Act. Reeling in pharmaceuticals should be a priority. The cost to produce a drug compared to what it cost consumers to purchase is way out of line. I don't know if it's feasible but using Medicare as a template should be examined. |
Which is why companies should be excised from the process. The bottom line of healthcare should be saving lives and keeping people healthy. Not profit.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13727
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Wilt wrote: | | You only said you pay $600 per year, which is $50 per month, for the entire family. Is that it? No deductibles, co-pays, and other out of pocket expenses? What about long hospital stays, etc? |
Minor copays on some of my kids meds amounting to a few dollars a month per. My daughter had a severe compound fracture when she was 9 that required 3 different surgeries over 18 months. Didn't pay a penny. My wife had elbow reconstruction a few years ago. The procedure was expense free, though I think we paid a small fee for some of her pain meds post surgery. My son has been going to an endocrinologist for the last few years to address concerns regarding his growth. That's covered, as well as the required labs he has done every couple of months.
The only meaningful expense I have had in recent years was for a portion of elective treatment with a dermatologist I have been going to for decades and that was only because he was out of network. |
I agree that the public option is the best political option for now, but I wonder if the funding that would presumably come from only the uninsured, underinsured, and poor people would be enough. Or would other money be allocated to make it work? If yes, would people like you, who are not ready to give up their private plans, be willing to contribute a little (maybe not as much as those that would actually use the public option) to make it work?
In order for any of this to happen, we'd have to get rid of the filibuster and probably pack the Supreme Court, and that's for the least extreme option, the public option. There's a long road ahead.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Having sold insurance I know companies are only interested in their bottom line. I think the way to go is to work with the Affordable Care Act. Reeling in pharmaceuticals should be a priority. The cost to produce a drug compared to what it cost consumers to purchase is way out of line. I don't know if it's feasible but using Medicare as a template should be examined. |
Which is why companies should be excised from the process. The bottom line of healthcare should be saving lives and keeping people healthy. Not profit. |
Ideally, health care should be about all of that without cost to individuals and families.
The problem comes with making that logistically and financially possible. The idea of suddenly snapping our fingers and making that happen for everyone in the country without a process of evolving away from the current approach is not.
So the pragmatic approach is to come up with a logical and achievable approach to improving the system over time. If it is possible to successfully do that, "for profit" health care will disappear all on it's own.
Thus, the best approach is one that acknowledges that, embraces the practicalities and hinderances involved and thus improves and advances through achievement over time . . . you know Progess - the root of the word "Progressive".
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | I agree that the public option is the best political option for now, but I wonder if the funding that would presumably come from only the uninsured, underinsured, and poor people would be enough. Or would other money be allocated to make it work? If yes, would people like you, who are not ready to give up their private plans, be willing to contribute a little (maybe not as much as those that would actually use the public option) to make it work? |
Absolutely. As I have said, the goal would be to get to a place where health care is not just affordable for all, but cost free and simply a given. It's just something that should exist in an advanced technological society. The problem is getting to that point. This country is not equipped to get there overnight and forcing a M4A system that erases options is not going to change that.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Having sold insurance I know companies are only interested in their bottom line. I think the way to go is to work with the Affordable Care Act. Reeling in pharmaceuticals should be a priority. The cost to produce a drug compared to what it cost consumers to purchase is way out of line. I don't know if it's feasible but using Medicare as a template should be examined. |
Which is why companies should be excised from the process. The bottom line of healthcare should be saving lives and keeping people healthy. Not profit. |
Ideally, health care should be about all of that without cost to individuals and families.
The problem comes with making that logistically and financially possible. The idea of suddenly snapping our fingers and making that happen for everyone in the country without a process of evolving away from the current approach is not.
So the pragmatic approach is to come up with a logical and achievable approach to improving the system over time. If it is possible to successfully do that, "for profit" health care will disappear all on it's own.
Thus, the best approach is one that acknowledges that, embraces the practicalities and hinderances involved and thus improves and advances through achievement over time . . . you know Progess - the root of the word "Progressive". |
I'm not well versed in the history of the NHS but wasn't that transformation to the British health care system fairly rapid and comprehensive?
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13727
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but they didn't really have a wide ranging private system before the NHS. We have an entrenched private system now with huge numbers of people employed by it and benefiting from it.
Keep in mind, this was after World War II. Churchill (who had just won the war) had just been defeated by socialists precisely because there was political will for drastic changes to the social welfare system. After the devastation caused by WWII, they had no other choice but to make risky and elaborate changes.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | In what way is your insurance better than the coverage you would get from Medicare for All DMR? |
I've covered that.
My question for you is that if M4A would so much of an advantage for everyone, why force people to participate?
If it is so much better and more attractive, then allowing people to retain their existing insurance isn't a threat to an effective and viable ACA plan. What happens is either both the private and public paths exist and thrive, which benefits everyone, or the private plans willow and die because people shift away from them because they no longer see the benefits and then M4A occurs organically. Which ties into your position of coming up with systems that work to start and them improve upon them over time. If the only way that M4A can work is to force it to work, it is a plan that is destined to be flawed from the outset and that rarely leads to successful improvement over time. |
So it's the price tag of $600 you are fortunate to have. That's what makes it better. Not like you're getting some sort of medical coverage you wouldn't get on Medicare.
And if you were switched onto Medicare in a M4A system. The "shoving down your throat" is paying the same taxes as everyone for healthcare.
Some of the things that make M4A superior to just a public option include.
*A public option would allow companies to continue profiting off the sick.
*For-profit insurance company waste would continue under a public option, but not Medicare for All.
*Medicare for All would guarantee access to home and community-based care for everyone.
*There would be no more price gouging by pharmaceutical companies.
If we start off with a public option and the transition to a single payer system is a perfect dream politically. There would be a very real cost of human lives.
You're talking about private plans dying so nonchalantly. But people are gonna get junk plans in this transition and they'll go broke and/or die.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
