Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Who's next on the chopping block?

 

I don't think Booker or Beto did anything to help their chances last night. And Booker is broke. Castro brought up some good points again but I'm not sure what his campaign strategy is at this point. Is Harris in trouble?

 

Buttigieg, Yang, and Steyer all have enough money to stick around for a while.

 

Wayne Messam.  He raised $5 in Q3.  Tim Ryan (is he trying to set up a 2022 Senate run against Portman?  Like...what is he doing here?).  Does anyone even know that Joe Sestak declared?

 

Steve Bullock has $1.4m on hand -> he should go the Hickenlooper route and run for Senate in Montana where he'd probably do pretty well!  He's term-limited as Governor so I'm not sure what he's doing unless he thinks he's making a play for a cabinet Secretary position?

 

Michal Bennet has $1.9m on hand.  He's probably lost in the shuffle in the Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar lane.  Really no reason to keep running other than McConnell has effectively killed all activity in the Senate and he's not running for re-elect in Colorado so....keep twiddling his thumbs on the campaign trail?

 

Julian Castro is at $672K on hand.  He's raised $7.5m so he's clearly spending it, but you can't be a viable candidate if you're basically broke a few months out from Iowa.

 

For some reason, Tulsi is sitting on over $2m in cash.  I'm not really sure what her play is - she's not going to primary Schatz or Hirono for Senate I wouldn't think.  She doesn't seem well-liked enough to be a cabinet member.  She's floundering around 2%.  Does she just want to say she got votes in Iowa or New Hampshire?

 

Delaney is down to $500k with $10.6m in debt.  And no one likes him.  Again...why is he here?

 

Beto is at $3.3m which is peanuts to the top 4 or 5 candidates.

 

Booker, actually, isn't broke (technically).  He has over $4m on hand with just $705k in debt.

 

Tom Steyer has spent $47m - nearly all of it his own money - to basically buy his way onto the debate stage for one night.  Imagine if he wasn't a self-absorbed billionaire and instead spent the money on state legislature races.  Freaking billionaires, man.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Here's the secret of the "people who like their plan" survey question: They ask them whether they would rather have their plan or no plan. Of course their current plan wins that one.

 

Which is why the "M4A will throw you off your insurance plan" talking point is so disingenuous.  Why not say, "you're automatically enrolled in a government-run plan with no co-pays, deductibles, or out of pockets and it's not run by an insurance company trying to squeeze as much profit out of you as they can?"


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course it was Biden saying that. Later in the debate he said that healthcare would cost 300 trillion dollars... yeah when we use Biden's numbers that are designed to scare people away from M4A by the insurance industry. If I were him, I'd demand way more than they're paying him to say that crap.

Edited by GCrites80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Sweden seems to be able to handle it just fine.

 

Exactly how many billions do you think private health insurance companies deserve in profit for sick and dying men, women, and children?

 

Yeah I mean... if you want to scale Sweden's plan to the size of the United States, we would need to hire a proportionate amount of federal employees, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. One thing I learned from living in a small population state (WV) is that the government did NOT shrink in proportion to the population size as compared to Ohio. Anyone with a law degree or MBA was pressured to become a politician. There's a minimum number of jobs associated with the existence of any government entity. And WV doesn't even have townships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Yeah I mean... if you want to scale Sweden's plan to the size of the United States, we would need to hire a proportionate amount of federal employees, right? 

 

Oh no, giving people jobs and healthcare.  You got us.

 

(It's also not proportionate.)


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Oh no, giving people jobs and healthcare.  You got us.

 

(It's also not proportionate.)

 

I'm all for jobs and healthcare....

 

I'm not for adding a few hundred billion to the debt to pay for a mandatory federal program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the money won't disappear, right? People will actually be able to buy stuff, save and invest when they don't have $500-1500 being vacuumed out of their wallets every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

I'm all for jobs and healthcare....

 

I'm not for adding a few hundred billion to the debt to pay for a mandatory federal program

 

I hate my plan. It is high deductible so it is pretty useless. BUT my employer puts thousands of dollars into my HSA each year, which I invest and get a return on. So I have a sizable nest egg in case I get sick. I presume, though, that if the government took over the health insurance market then my employer would have a lot more money to provide me with a higher salary. And in the end, it is nice that my HSA is tax advantaged, but I'd rather have healthcare and a higher salary. I can always direct more money into my 401k or HSA myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 I presume, though, that if the government took over the health insurance market then my employer would have a lot more money to provide me with a higher salary.

 

They wouldn't, because the first thing Democrats would do to in order to pay for healthcare is take, via tax, all the money your employer currently puts into your HSA, and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, YABO713 said:

I'm not for adding a few hundred billion to the debt to pay for a mandatory federal program

 

We have a lot of things adding hundreds of billions to the debt.  Weird critique.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

You know the money won't disappear, right? People will actually be able to buy stuff, save and invest when they don't have $500-1500 being vacuumed out of their wallets every month.

 

The right has no legitimate criticisms. It's all bad faith.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure how Pete can answer for this tweet - when he went out of his way to let everyone now he favors M4A - given his recent string of attacks on M4A.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

We have a lot of things adding hundreds of billions to the debt.  Weird critique.

 

I literally critique the Trump Admin for this non-stop??? lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I am genuinely curious who the voters are who like their private plans! The "in-network vs out-of-network" rabbit holes.  The premiums, the deductibles, the out-of-pockets.  What coverage do you get at which doctor.  Etc.  Who are the voters who love spending hours chasing down insurance companies to find out why a $50 visit is now $250?  Who are the voters who like the rising cost of prescriptions which insurance companies are covering less and less?  Who are the people who are saying, "why, yes, insurance companies should be raking in record profits off of our health and our need to get care!"

 

That's why not forcing M4A is critical... let the government prove M4A is the better option so people go there, and the private market will collapse.

 

Forcing people into a government program is never a good idea when it actively kills a private industry and the tens of thousands of jobs tied to it. But when the government can beat private industry at its own game then absolutely it should happen.

 

Forced M4A won't fly in a general election. Warren, Sanders, etc. would have to moderate their position if they are the nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SWOH said:

 

That's why not forcing M4A is critical... let the government prove M4A is the better option so people go there, and the private market will collapse.

 

Forcing people into a government program is never a good idea when it actively kills a private industry and the tens of thousands of jobs tied to it. But when the government can beat private industry at its own game then absolutely it should happen.

 

Forced M4A won't fly in a general election. Warren, Sanders, etc. would have to moderate their position if they are the nominee.

 

This is actually a fair point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cover almost all individuals over the age of 65 (excluding VA benefits and people who make too much money) using only 2.9% of wages already. Just wages, no capital gains or other income. Companies and individuals are paying 30% of wages or more just for private healthcare right now -- lost to profit and bloat. M4A sells itself, yet people will resist because for some reason they can rationalize away their own interests in the name of pharmaceutical firms insurance companies and medical billing and coding jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I'm not sure how Pete can answer for this tweet - when he went out of his way to let everyone now he favors M4A - given his recent string of attacks on M4A.

 

Only posting a Fox News article because it was the first article I could find to confirm this line of thought, but Pete does support M4A.

This is his position on it:

 

If private insurers are unable or unwilling to offer better plans than they do today, competition from this public alternative will naturally lead to Medicare-for-all

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-public-option-medicare

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I'm not sure how Pete can answer for this tweet - when he went out of his way to let everyone now he favors M4A - given his recent string of attacks on M4A.

 

It looks kind of sarcastic.  Or at best like he sees it as one possible option.  Seems like anything but a straight up endorsement of the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

I'm all for jobs and healthcare....

 

I'm not for adding a few hundred billion to the debt to pay for a mandatory federal program

 

@YABO713, You  do realize that your people passed a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations that will add, conservatively, (get it!) two TRILLION  dollars  to the national debt over the next ten years. Economists are now putting it closer to four TRILLION. That tax cut benefited people that have or make a lot of money. I’m going to hang my a** out there and tell you I got back 25k MORE in 2018  with everything else being static. It was the great train robbery for those Uber rich, those in the higher tax brackets and those that fall into the AMT (myself). 

 

My my point being is I heard very little from you when they pushed through the wealth tax cut but now you’re concerned if the government racks up a few hundred billion for universal health care. You understand why everyone considers fiscal conservatism dead, except those  that consider themselves fiscal conservatives.

i do appreciate your insight but this comment was a little far fetched under the circumstances.

Edited by stpats44113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stpats44113 said:

 

@YABO713, You  do realize that your people passed a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations that will add, conservatively, (get it!) two TRILLION  dollars  to the national debt over the next ten years. Economists are now putting it closer to four TRILLION. That tax cut benefited people that have or make a lot of money. I’m going to hang my a** out there and tell you I got back 25k MORE in 2018  with everything else being static. It was the great train robbery for those Uber rich, those in the higher tax brackets and those that fall into the AMT (myself). 

 

My my point being is I heard very little from you when they pushed through the wealth tax cut but now you’re concerned if the government racks up a few hundred billion for universal health care. You understand why everyone considers fiscal conservatism dead, except those  that consider themselves fiscal conservatives.

i do appreciate your insight but this comment was a little far fetched under the circumstances.

FWIW - at that time I believe @YABO713 expressed many of the same concerns you did about the tax cut and how it was going to drive up the debt, do it is unfair to attack him over this.

 

Just because the tax reform act was not an exercise in fiscal responsibility (which did in fact anger a lot of conservatives) does not mean that we should double down or more and take a 2 Trillion deficit and add 28 trillion more with crazy Bernie's ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, X said:

 

It looks kind of sarcastic.  Or at best like he sees it as one possible option.  Seems like anything but a straight up endorsement of the idea.

 

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

FWIW - at that time I believe @YABO713 expressed many of the same concerns you did about the tax cut and how it was going to drive up the debt, do it is unfair to attack him over this.

 

Just because the tax reform act was not an exercise in fiscal responsibility (which did in fact anger a lot of conservatives) does not mean that we should double down or more and take a 2 Trillion deficit and add 28 trillion more with crazy Bernie's ideas.

 

As others have pointed out, we can pay for M4A without taking on a huge deficit. 

14 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

They wouldn't, because the first thing Democrats would do to in order to pay for healthcare is take, via tax, all the money your employer currently puts into your HSA, and then some.

 

Yes, exactly.  Whether it is a tax or a premium, what we pay the government will have to increase to pay for health insurance.

 

13 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

We cover almost all individuals over the age of 65 (excluding VA benefits and people who make too much money) using only 2.9% of wages already. Just wages, no capital gains or other income. Companies and individuals are paying 30% of wages or more just for private healthcare right now -- lost to profit and bloat.

 

We are already being "taxed" by private insurance companies, and they increase their premiums every year.  Business would be better if they knew they had to pay 20% in FICA and that would include health insurance.  The uncertainty around how much our insurance costs are going to increase next year limits business investment and is a drag on our economy.  A self-inflicted wound that foreign companies don't have. 

 

Healthcare is expensive, and sooner or later we are all going to need it. 

The best way to prepare for big expenses that will come at an unknown time is to buy insurance. 

Insurance works best if the largest number of people possible contribute. 

Ergo, a national health insurance plan will ultimately be the cheapest approach, whether it's M4A or something else.  

Where is the weak link in that logic?

 

We all agree that a national health insurance plan will be expensive in the aggregate.  Some candidates are more willing to talk about the premiums for a national health insurance system as being a "tax."  If it is compulsory, that is true.  But if it is optional, the Medicare-buy-in plans for example, it looks more like a premium (even if it is based on a percentage of income).

 

I think the more important question we should all be thinking about is whether the tax/premium for national health insurance will be less than under the current private insurance system for the same coverage.  The devil is in those details, not the cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, YABO713 said:

I literally critique the Trump Admin for this non-stop??? lol 

 

I mean, if you actually read the M4A bill it is paid for - Sanders is being honest that everyone will see a tax increase.  It's just much less for 99% of people compared to their health premiums, co-pays, etc. and will cost less overall because the government is negotiating pricing and they don't have a built-in need to take a profit.

 

Warren, I don't think, can continue for 8 more months being evasive on it.  If she wants to pay for it outside of a payroll-style tax, then she should say that.  But there is a way to say, "yes, people will see a tax increase that is less than their current healthcare costs that will disappear" and then she could pivot to the pitfalls of M4AWWI.  Or, if she wants to raise the money via wealth tax or whatever, then just say that.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SWOH said:

That's why not forcing M4A is critical... let the government prove M4A is the better option so people go there, and the private market will collapse.

 

Forcing people into a government program is never a good idea when it actively kills a private industry and the tens of thousands of jobs tied to it. But when the government can beat private industry at its own game then absolutely it should happen.

 

This undercuts the entire notion of M4A as I understand it -> the point is that with only the government negotiating pricing, then costs will come down overall.  Also, the "insurance pool" of those who "want Medicare-style insurance" may not exactly be the best.  Costs go down when you have younger and healthier people on, but who knows - maybe millennials and Gen Zers would sign up?  I don't know all the specifics but I see those cited as reasons why a public option wouldn't necessarily lead to everyone wanting M4A.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I mean, if you actually read the M4A bill it is paid for - Sanders is being honest that everyone will see a tax increase.  It's just much less for 99% of people compared to their health premiums, co-pays, etc. and will cost less overall because the government is negotiating pricing and they don't have a built-in need to take a profit.

 

Warren, I don't think, can continue for 8 more months being evasive on it.  If she wants to pay for it outside of a payroll-style tax, then she should say that.  But there is a way to say, "yes, people will see a tax increase that is less than their current healthcare costs that will disappear" and then she could pivot to the pitfalls of M4AWWI.  Or, if she wants to raise the money via wealth tax or whatever, then just say that.

 

Here's the thing - I usually abhor taxes but if it gets more people healthcare, I won't fight a small increase. I will, however, fight against a mandate tooth and nail. The government should be a competitor on the market, not THE market. We treat all fundamental rights the same - i.e. housing and food. IF you believe access to healthcare is a human right, why not treat it the same as HUD or SNAP programs? Would you propose a government takeover of both of those? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SWOH said:

 

Only posting a Fox News article because it was the first article I could find to confirm this line of thought, but Pete does support M4A.

This is his position on it:

 

13 hours ago, SWOH said:

If private insurers are unable or unwilling to offer better plans than they do today, competition from this public alternative will naturally lead to Medicare-for-all

 

This...isn't supporting M4A.  If I want I candidate who supports it, why would I pick Buttigieg?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

This...isn't supporting M4A.  If I want I candidate who supports it, why would I pick Buttigieg?

 

He supports the idea that M4A is the best solution. But he believes that politically it is best to take an incremental approach and that if you offer a public option it'll be popular--eventually leading to M4A. 

 

Now, hear me out. He makes a lot of sense. If Bernie or Warren are selected as the nominee and they do not moderate their position during the general (not a guarantee) then they will be in a position of trying to push something through that is not universally popular, even among Dems. They might accomplish it, they might not. But I GUARANTEE that in 2022 Dems will see HUGE losses in the House and Senate. Maybe the biggest in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

They wouldn't, because the first thing Democrats would do to in order to pay for healthcare is take, via tax, all the money your employer currently puts into your HSA, and then some.

 

This really shows your lack of understanding of the issue. When you combine the amount that my employer pays for my plan with the amount they contribute to my HSA, the new tax will be THOUSANDS of dollars in savings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Starting another push for healthcare reform with exactly the negotiating position Obama started with ("let's have a public option") is just asking for a repeat of the Obamacare fiasco. Get ready for Tea Party 2.0.

 

If you want a public option, you're better off letting that be the "compromise" position, rather than a chip at the beginning that will inevitably be compromised away.

Edited by Robuu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has yet to make the moral or ethical case as to how much profit health care insurance companies should be able to rake in off the backs of sick and dying men, women, and children.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robuu said:

If you want a public option, you're better off letting that be the "compromise" position, rather than a chip at the beginning that will inevitably be compromised away.

 

Never underestimate the power of Democrats to negotiate against themselves.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

He supports the idea that M4A is the best solution. But he believes that politically it is best to take an incremental approach and that if you offer a public option it'll be popular--eventually leading to M4A. 

 

Now, hear me out. He makes a lot of sense. If Bernie or Warren are selected as the nominee and they do not moderate their position during the general (not a guarantee) then they will be in a position of trying to push something through that is not universally popular, even among Dems. They might accomplish it, they might not. But I GUARANTEE that in 2022 Dems will see HUGE losses in the House and Senate. Maybe the biggest in history.

 

Agreed.  M4A is ultimately the goal, but I don't necessarily trust the Dems to make it happen when it's clear not even all within their own party are on board with it, and it would waste any election mandate.  More people will be willing to support if it they're given a choice.  Perhaps that will undermine it to some degree, but we still live in a world where the entire concept of anything government run has been poisoned for decades by Republicans.  Democrats have to be smart about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Agreed.  M4A is ultimately the goal, but I don't necessarily trust the Dems to make it happen when it's clear not even all within their own party are on board with it, and it would waste any election mandate.  More people will be willing to support if it they're given a choice.  Perhaps that will undermine it to some degree, but we still live in a world where the entire concept of anything government run has been poisoned for decades by Republicans.  Democrats have to be smart about it.

 

Exactly! People seem to forget that a majority of DEMOCRATS prefer a "Medicare for all who want it" type plan. And I personally know several fed up Republicans who would gladly vote for a Dem like Pete but see Bernie and Warren as non-starters if they're trying to push a healthcare plan that eliminates private insurance. 

 

And I say all this as someone who prefers a President Warren and have no problem eliminating private insurance personally. I'm just reacting to what I see around me and with the public at-large. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

For some reason, Tulsi is sitting on over $2m in cash.  I'm not really sure what her play is - she's not going to primary Schatz or Hirono for Senate I wouldn't think.  She doesn't seem well-liked enough to be a cabinet member.  She's floundering around 2%.  Does she just want to say she got votes in Iowa or New Hampshire?

 

 

Kickbacks to Assad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...