2020 Election - Catch-all Thread

58,850 Views | 1686 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by Professor Turgeson Bear
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Good segment poking major holes in Elizabeth Warren's plans.
Double the federal government, add $4T in debt?
She hasn't explained where she gets the money for all she wants to do.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-staggering-cost-of-elizabeth-warrens-plans-42-trillion-per-year-161552386.html
She has explained - healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc. would be re-routed to pay for her health care plan
Current budget of some $3.8 Trillion where we are around $900 Million in debt with that number. Sure makes sense to me to add another $4.2 Trillion a year. Think big or go home.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Good segment poking major holes in Elizabeth Warren's plans.
Double the federal government, add $4T in debt?
She hasn't explained where she gets the money for all she wants to do.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-staggering-cost-of-elizabeth-warrens-plans-42-trillion-per-year-161552386.html
She has explained - healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc. would be re-routed to pay for her health care plan
Current budget of some $3.8 Trillion where we are around $900 Million in debt with that number. Sure makes sense to me to add another $4.2 Trillion a year. Think big or go home.
I think we should start another war that we can't pay for.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we should cut taxes more for the rich
An old white dude
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Good segment poking major holes in Elizabeth Warren's plans.
Double the federal government, add $4T in debt?
She hasn't explained where she gets the money for all she wants to do.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-staggering-cost-of-elizabeth-warrens-plans-42-trillion-per-year-161552386.html
She has explained - healthcare premiums, deductibles, etc. would be re-routed to pay for her health care plan
Can I get a Ross Perot white board on that?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The article is lame. First of all there is no Warren Health Care Plan, there is only the Sanders Bill she supports. The article cites single payer costs of $3.4 trillion per year but costs aren't necessary increased taxes. The Sanders Bill estimates increased tax revenues at $1.3 trillion per year, see link

Cost of military, .6 trillion per year.

https://www.peri.umass.edu/images/Pollin--Open_Letter_to_Sen_Sanders_re_Medicare_for_All_funding---10-7-19-2.pdf?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any of these cost of health care analyses that don't take into account the decrease in spending by businesses and individuals for employee premiums are incomplete and misleading.

Also as someone who has some HR admin experience, it's a nightmare for businesses and would be a boon to businesses large and small to have the government take it over. A lot of people would be happy to see employers get out of the health care providing game. Will be bad for companies involved in administration of benefits of course so there are tradeoffs on both sides.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Any of these cost of health care analyses that don't take into account the decrease in spending by businesses and individuals for employee premiums are incomplete and misleading.

Also as someone who has some HR admin experience, it's a nightmare for businesses and would be a boon to businesses large and small to have the government take it over. A lot of people would be happy to see employers get out of the health care providing game. Will be bad for companies involved in administration of benefits of course so there are tradeoffs on both sides.


This is one thing I've never understood. Why aren't corporations and municipalities for that matter jumping up and down lobbying for this? Who want to pay for your employees health care for life? The other point of course is that the employer paid benefits to the employee are untaxed income ( or a subsidy)which also costs the government a fortune in revenues.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly. GM LOVES Canadian healthcare. They just never say so in the U.S...but man when they're in Canada they fccking gush like schoolgirls because they save like 20% overhead by not having to deal with healthcare at all. It's really that simple, employers, corporations and small businesses simply don't have to deal with healthcare and save in the process.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Any of these cost of health care analyses that don't take into account the decrease in spending by businesses and individuals for employee premiums are incomplete and misleading.

Also as someone who has some HR admin experience, it's a nightmare for businesses and would be a boon to businesses large and small to have the government take it over. A lot of people would be happy to see employers get out of the health care providing game. Will be bad for companies involved in administration of benefits of course so there are tradeoffs on both sides.
Wife runs an engineering firm, and every year I'm in on the discussion of which new plan to switch to (the plans never stay the same). We reimburse our employees for their out of pocket medical costs so they don't have to worry about getting the care they need, so every year is a guessing game as to what medical treatment we think we can reasonably predict our people and their families will need. Premiums have risen on average about 10%/yr since we bought the company in 2007, even as deductibles have skyrocketed (and don't get me started on the cost increase of epipens). Can't wait for the govt. to take it all over.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Any of these cost of health care analyses that don't take into account the decrease in spending by businesses and individuals for employee premiums are incomplete and misleading.

Also as someone who has some HR admin experience, it's a nightmare for businesses and would be a boon to businesses large and small to have the government take it over. A lot of people would be happy to see employers get out of the health care providing game. Will be bad for companies involved in administration of benefits of course so there are tradeoffs on both sides.
Wife runs an engineering firm, and every year I'm in on the discussion of which new plan to switch to (the plans never stay the same). We reimburse our employees for their out of pocket medical costs so they don't have to worry about getting the care they need, so every year is a guessing game as to what medical treatment we think we can reasonably predict our people and their families will need. Premiums have risen on average about 10%/yr since we bought the company in 2007, even as deductibles have skyrocketed (and don't get me started on the cost increase of epipens). Can't wait for the govt. to take it all over.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amy is at 3%.
She doesn't have a lot of publicity personality juice, so she likely won't climb much. But she's hanging in the race

-- likely in hopes of being picked as VP!
Perhaps Biden's VP!
Both moderates.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who do you think Bernie would pick?
Who do you think Elizabeth would pick?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Who do you think Bernie would pick?
Who do you think Elizabeth would pick?


I think Warren might pick Jay Inslee and have him be her Climate Change guru. This is based on nothing except I think she'll pick a white man and she has basically adopted his climate change plan.
An old white dude
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think that most of the candidates are running for one of 3 reasons: 1) chance at VP, 2) future political career - some benefit to being seen as a legit candidate, 3) they are dumb.

There are only a handful of candidates running that have a chance. You see it with Hillary and Bloomberg talking about entering the race. They realize that if one of the top 3 falters, they will have legit shot. People like Castro, Yang and Klobuchar have zero chance of actually winning the nomination.

Steyer is a special case. He's not dumb but he's not running for VP or the future. He's got his own thing going on.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Who do you think Elizabeth would pick?
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

In America, yeah. In other countries the government provides for all citizens. No reason we can't do the same.

Of course there will be limitations, and I am not suggesting otherwise. I'll still take them over what we have now.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thumbs up.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will Wife and Oski003 vote for Gabbard when she eventually runs as an Independent?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Surprise, surprise...HRC was correct.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Lmao she's ahead of Kamala Harris. This is also known as the Hillary Clinton surge. Hillary has been groomed by Putin for years and is clearly a Russian asset
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Stick a fork in her.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Stick a fork in her.
Maybe one person on here (at most) has been rooting for Harris, so your rejoicing in her demise isn't really met with much troll power.

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Anarchistbear said:

Stick a fork in her.
Maybe one person on here (at most) has been rooting for Harris, so your rejoicing in her demise isn't really met with much troll power.




Hardly trolling to report on the demise of. candidate who at one point was considered top three and is now irrelevant. Seems like it's relevant to an election thread. So who were you trolling with your Gabbard post?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

Anarchistbear said:

Stick a fork in her.
Maybe one person on here (at most) has been rooting for Harris, so your rejoicing in her demise isn't really met with much troll power.




Hardly trolling to report on the demise of. candidate who at one point was considered top three and is now irrelevant. Seems like it's relevant to an election thread. So who were you trolling with your Gabbard post?


He was trolling you and Cal88
An old white dude
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
Seriously.

There are so many problems in this country that other countries have addressed with working systems. We have plenty to choose from - just pick the one you like the best.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
As I recall, none of those countries provide free healthcare to individuals who are not otherwise permanent residents or citizens. In addition, don't people still need private insurance to cover prescription drugs in Canada (which are one of the most costly aspects of healthcare in the US)? Furthermore, the costs and wait time in Canada are some of the highest. Finally, it appears that even with government coverage, the poor, minorities and people living in rural areas still get inferior service.

There are positives and negatives. This site provides a fair high-level assessment of Canadian medical coverage (intended for expats and probably without all of the details that some here will nitpick): Canadian Medical Coverage

My preference would be to expand Medicaid (including Federal subsidies) to ensure minimum coverage for those truly in need. We should also have Medicare negotiate rates for prescription drugs. Maybe we could also fund free clinics (including one where illegal immigrants can seek basic coverage). Just don't like the idea of forcing people into one system that has some significant negatives.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:


I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
As I recall, none of those countries provide free healthcare to individuals who are not otherwise permanent residents or citizens.
It's hilarious to me how much you right wingers focus on immigrants as the root cause of every problem in your life.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:


I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
As I recall, none of those countries provide free healthcare to individuals who are not otherwise permanent residents or citizens.
It's hilarious to me how much you right wingers focus on immigrants as the root cause of every problem in your life.
Hey, idiot (since we are resorting to name calling) who has probably never made any meaningful contribution to society, I was identifying no coverage for illegal immigrants as a negative and why their plans are not adequate. And why wouldn't permanent residents be immigrants? You are not smart enough to be making so many assumptions. If fact, the only assumption you should make is that your other assumptions are wrong.

In fact, fiscal conservatives like me have long been proponents of robust immigration. It's Sanders (until he decided to run for President) and your kind who have been historically isolationists and who have been against even legal immigration. I can only guess based on your writing that you are not really who you claim to be since, until recently, Sanders was against robust immigration (or even gun control).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-touts-immigration-plans-but-his-record-is-complicated-11568807092

https://psmag.com/news/bernie-says-immigration-threatens-the-social-safety-net-research-shows-otherwise

Funny how other than posting long idiotic articles no one reads and pretending to fawn over Sanders, you add no substance other than name calling.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
As I recall, none of those countries provide free healthcare to individuals who are not otherwise permanent residents or citizens. In addition, don't people still need private insurance to cover prescription drugs in Canada (which are one of the most costly aspects of healthcare in the US)? Furthermore, the costs and wait time in Canada are some of the highest. Finally, it appears that even with government coverage, the poor, minorities and people living in rural areas still get inferior service.

There are positives and negatives. This site provides a fair high-level assessment of Canadian medical coverage (intended for expats and probably without all of the details that some here will nitpick): Canadian Medical Coverage
AFAIK, the United States still spends more than Canada for worse results and our drug prices are also higher. So as usual, I would still take their system over ours.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

It'shilarious to me how much you right wingers focus on immigrants as the root cause of every problem in your life.


In "Zero Tolerance," FRONTLINE Investigates How Donald Trump Turned Immigration into a Powerful Political Weapon | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/announcement/in-zero-tolerance-frontline-investigates-how-donald-trump-turned-immigration-into-a-powerful-political-weapon/

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.