2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
Its not so much the Tulsi attack.
Her stepping away from M4A and her other attempts to be simply be another centrist hurt her.
Click to expand...

Tulsi definitely had nothing to do with any of it. She's simply not the candidate her acolytes made her out to be.
 
Even the elephant in the room is more popular.
 
Their justification is that free trade agreements and keeping prices high are vote-winning positions. Which is so stupid you know they're lying and just protecting donors.
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Who at Twitter will determine what ads are "political" and which ones aren't?
Click to expand...
Everything non-comercial will be considered "political" is my guess, not too hard a line to draw imo. There are countries that don't allow political ads for example.
 
Revan said:
This was always to be expected. Manchin is actually a right wing politician whom for some reason decided that he is a Democrat.
Click to expand...

i know you're being flippant, but it's not an accident. it's because till <10 years ago, w va was a very solid blue state, and had been for 70 years.
The story of West Virginia’s drift to the right in presidential elections is well known. George W. Bush’s first campaign marked a significant shift in the state’s voting patterns as it switched from reliably voting Democrat to Republican in presidential elections. This move is typically explained by pointing to West Virginia’s declining unions, opposition to climate-change regulations that would impact the state’s coal industry, and the rising appeal of social conservatism.

Less discussed is the decline of the West Virginia Democratic Party, particularly its collapse in the last two years. The Democratic Party controlled both houses of the West Virginia legislature for eighty-two years from 1932 to 2014. But in the space of two years the party has become a shadow of its former self: the Democrats went from holding 71 percent of the seats in the House of Delegates in 2008 to 54 percent in 2012 to 36 percent in 2014 (and maintained 37 percent in 2016). Democratic representation in the state senate fell from 71 percent in 2012 to 47 percent in 2014 to 35 percent in 2016.
Click to expand...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/losing-west-virginia
 
berbatrick said:
i know you're being flippant, but it's not an accident. it's because till <10 years ago, w va was a very solid blue state, and had been for 70 years.


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/losing-west-virginia
Click to expand...
Manchin said that this is his last term in the Senate, so he is not seeking reelection. Just that he really is a right wing politician, so of course he won't support Bernie's agenda. And when he is gone, some Republican will win his seat.
 
berbatrick said:
i know you're being flippant, but it's not an accident. it's because till <10 years ago, w va was a very solid blue state, and had been for 70 years.


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/losing-west-virginia
Click to expand...

subscriber only article.

Manchin replaced Robert Byrd who was literally a KKK member and part of the filibuster against the Civil Rights Legislation. WV might have been Democrat but they have long been very social conservative and not progressive at all. That seat might have been "blue" but its never been decent.

This is really fun if you haven't seen it. Appalachia is a wacky place
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
subscriber only article.

Manchin replaced Robert Byrd who was literally a KKK member and part of the filibuster against the Civil Rights Legislation. WV might have been Democrat but they have long been very social conservative and not progressive at all. That seat might have been "blue" but its never been decent.

This is really fun if you haven't seen it. Appalachia is a wacky place
Click to expand...


Byrd also changed / moderated a lot of his views and ended up opposing the Iraq war and endorsing Obama over Clinton. West Virginia also has a strong union history.

It has a unique culture and it will never be won by the likes of Clinton or Buttigieg but it's not unwinnable by a new deal Democrat. Bernie won every single county in the 2016 primary and even got huge crowds in 2017/2018.
 
So the policy wonk with plans is accounting for $400 billion by...wait for it...passing comprehensive immigration reform which will increase tax revenue?


I cant wait for all the centrists to tell us how this is much more realistic than Bernie's idea.
 
Eboue said:
Byrd also changed / moderated a lot of his views and ended up opposing the Iraq war and endorsing Obama over Clinton. West Virginia also has a strong union history.

It has a unique culture and it will never be won by the likes of Clinton or Buttigieg but it's not unwinnable by a new deal Democrat. Bernie won every single county in the 2016 primary and even got huge crowds in 2017/2018.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they also Jay Rockefeller in the 2000s who killed public options and was generally a conservative Democrat waste of a seat for any actual progressive policy. It's definitely unique culture wise but I don't really see it as producing much in the way of help for any meaningful changes at the moment.

Bernie might be able to win WV but I think its more Trump's to lose so to speak
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah but they also Jay Rockefeller in the 2000s who killed public options and was generally a conservative Democrat waste of a seat for any actual progressive policy. It's definitely unique culture wise but I don't really see it as producing much in the way of help for any meaningful changes at the moment.

Bernie might be able to win WV but I think its more Trump's to lose so to speak
Click to expand...

Its also been trending more conservative over the past 25 years. Bill Clinton was the last Dem to do well there IIRC. Dubya made easy work of Gore and Kerry, and Obama got beaten there twice, and Hillary got murdered in 16. So all things said, it would be a monumental task for a Dem to win there in the Gen.
 
Eboue said:
So the policy wonk with plans is accounting for $400 billion by...wait for it...passing comprehensive immigration reform which will increase tax revenue?


I cant wait for all the centrists to tell us how this is much more realistic than Bernie's idea.
Click to expand...

How is Bernie paying for medicare for all?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I think it's by reinvesting the money currently spent on private insurance while providing a 10 trillion refund to companies and citizens over 10 years.
Click to expand...

So assuming that whatever money is spend by a certain percentage of population of US on health care premiums is going to enough to account for health care for the whole population. Is that proven in any way?
 
crappycraperson said:
How is Bernie paying for medicare for all?
Click to expand...

Warren proposes a $9500 head tax from employers for every employee they hire (only employers with >50 employees*). [besides other smaller things]

Bernie proposes a 7.5% payroll tax (on the employer's end) to replace their current insurance contributions, and a 4% income tax on everybody else (to replace premiums and deductibles, etc). [besides other smaller things]


*this guy argues that this flat amount and sharp cutoff will be riskier than a flat payroll tax
 
Last edited:
Eboue said:
How is any government spending paid for? With taxes. There doesn't need to be a specific line item for each thing. How do we pay for national parks? How do we pay for the clarinets for the marine band?
Click to expand...

*yawn* so why criticize Warren over the same when she is accouting for where money is going to come from. No one can give exact specifics of how money will be accounted for beforing taking over. Only reason why Bernie fanatics keep disparaging Warren over the same is because they have convinced themselves that she is not not going to implement it.
 
crappycraperson said:
So assuming that whatever money is spend by a certain percentage of population of US on health care premiums is going to enough to account for health care for the whole population. Is that proven in any way?
Click to expand...

I was being a bit tongue in cheek but going from memory I believe those figures result from a conservative think tank who claimed that medicare for all would cost the American public the outrageous sum of something like 30 trillion over a decade. The problem with that was that private medical insurance would cost the American public something like 40 trillion over the same period of time.
 
crappycraperson said:
*yawn* so why criticize Warren over the same when she is accouting for where money is going to come from. No one can give exact specifics of how money will be accounted for beforing taking over. Only reason why Bernie fanatics keep disparaging Warren over the same is because they have convinced themselves that she is not not going to implement it.
Click to expand...

Because her plan requires not only overhauling healthcare but also passing major immigration reform. It's even more difficult to achieve and it's especially galling to read from the candidate whose supporters are always criticizing Bernie for being unrealistic. Its the hypocrisy of it all.
 
.
oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah but they also Jay Rockefeller in the 2000s who killed public options and was generally a conservative Democrat waste of a seat for any actual progressive policy. It's definitely unique culture wise but I don't really see it as producing much in the way of help for any meaningful changes at the moment.

Bernie might be able to win WV but I think its more Trump's to lose so to speak
Click to expand...

WV is Socially Conservative. But they would welcome programs Bernie is fighting for.
Health Care, Education, Expanding Social Security for example.

Bernie could win quite comfortably.
 
Warren does not mention removing Insurance Companies from the equation.
That is a huge unnecessary cost.

A 4% Payroll Tax is an increase of 2.55% to what we all pay. But we do not have any premiums/Co Pays and the big one. Deductibles.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I was being a bit tongue in cheek but going from memory I believe those figures result from a conservative think tank who claimed that medicare for all would cost the American public the outrageous sum of something like 30 trillion over a decade. The problem with that was that private medical insurance would cost the American public something like 40 trillion over the same period of time.
Click to expand...
There was a Koch funded study that showed 33 trillion over a decade. Average of 3.3 trillion a year. Of course, 3.4 trillion was spent last year. By the 10th year of that hypothetical decade, the annual number was predicted under the current model to break 5 trillion. Either 5.2 or 5.4, can’t remember exactly. 3.3 Looks pretty good compared to current and projected costs So of course the Sanders team used this study as a positive. It certainly came across as a “self-own.”
 
Eboue said:
Because her plan requires not only overhauling healthcare but also passing major immigration reform. It's even more difficult to achieve and it's especially galling to read from the candidate whose supporters are always criticizing Bernie for being unrealistic. Its the hypocrisy of it all.
Click to expand...
You're sounding like a centrist with that statement, making reasons how it cannot be done. That seems only a small part of the plan to account for the money.

Red Dreams said:
Warren does not mention removing Insurance Companies from the equation.
That is a huge unnecessary cost.

A 4% Payroll Tax is an increase of 2.55% to what we all pay. But we do not have any premiums/Co Pays and the big one. Deductibles.
Click to expand...
Its the same in Warren's plan. Instead of tax increases, she is just accounting for the money through other means.

p.s. I only skimmed through it once, so I might be wrong.
 
Red Dreams said:
Warren does not mention removing Insurance Companies from the equation.
That is a huge unnecessary cost.

A 4% Payroll Tax is an increase of 2.55% to what we all pay. But we do not have any premiums/Co Pays and the big one. Deductibles.
Click to expand...
From everything I'm reading, both from her post and from the news reports about the release of her plan, what she's proposed is a single payer system.

I.e.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...beth-warrens-new-health-care-plan-gets-right/
Here are the major features of Warren’s Medicare-for-all (M4A) plan:
  • All Americans would get coverage through a unified system run by the federal government. No more varying employer plans, individual market plans, skinny plans, COBRA, provider networks or the rest of it. Everyone has insurance, full stop.
  • Benefits would be comprehensive. Warren would include not only standard coverage that is included in most existing plans, but also things such as dental care, vision care and long-term care, that usually aren’t.
  • How you pay would change, and you’d probably pay less. Right now if like most people you get your insurance through your job, your employer pays premiums, you pay a portion of those premiums, plus you pay deductibles and co-pays. You’d pay none of that under Warren’s plan; instead, your employer would essentially shift its portion of the cost, paying the government a tax based on how many full-time employees they have instead of paying an insurance company.
  • There are no new taxes on anyone but the wealthy. This was a key question that Warren has now answered: Taxes on most people would not go up, though she would institute a wealth surtax on billionaires and create a financial transactions tax on Wall Street. In addition, Warren would recapture what states now spend on Medicaid to fund this system.
  • Prescription drug costs would be cut. Warren says that with aggressive negotiation with drug companies, she can bring down costs by 70 percent for name-brand drugs and 30 percent for generic.
  • Bureaucracy would get streamlined. Right now we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on maintaining an intricate system of negotiation and billing between insurers and providers. A single-payer system doesn’t eliminate those costs completely, but it would bring them down significantly.
  • Providers would feel some pain, but not as much as they might expect. The reason American health care costs so much is that we pay more for everything, from drugs to medical devices to MRIs to a doctor’s visit. In an M4A system, the government can bring down those prices, but if you do it too quickly or drastically, you could threaten providers and generate a backlash from doctors. Warren says providers will be paid at 110 percent of current Medicare rates, “with appropriate adjustments for rural hospitals, teaching hospitals, and other care providers.”
Click to expand...
 
Carolina Red said:
From everything I'm reading, both from her post and from the news reports about the release of her plan, what she's proposed is a single payer system.

I.e.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...beth-warrens-new-health-care-plan-gets-right/
Click to expand...

I'm all for Single payer.

The last point is debatable.
The reason costs are high is because of Insurance companies and Drug expenses.
Not because of Doctors and providers.

Still much better than the others except for Bernie's which is straightforward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.