2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Ben E Lou]

Moderator: "How do we deal with the legacy of slavery in America?"

Biden: "Black people don't know how to raise their kids, so they need government help."
Biden: "And record players. They need record players."

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Moderator: "How do we deal with the legacy of slavery in America?"

Biden: "Black people don't know how to raise their kids, so they need government help."
Biden: "And record players. They need record players."

See, I must have been watching a different debate than most people. I thought Biden seemed a bit confused more than once, and then that happened. He is scaring me. Bernie also sounded rough with his voice going. Warren seem to disappear for long stretches. Everyone else did well, but too many doing well means probably status quo. Well, except for Castro. Castro seemed to be auditioning for Warren's Vice President.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

See, I must have been watching a different debate than most people. I thought Biden seemed a bit confused more than once, and then that happened. He is scaring me. Bernie also sounded rough with his voice going. Warren seem to disappear for long stretches. Everyone else did well, but too many doing well means probably status quo. Well, except for Castro. Castro seemed to be auditioning for Warren's Vice President.

I agree, I thought Biden was bad. He stumbles and fumbles. Almost like, if he goes off script, he has no idea what to say and it never turns out well.

[SackAttack]

No more septuagenarians.

[ISiddiqui]

Matt Yglesias here makes a good "birds eye" point as to why Biden is leading:

Joe Biden wins the September 2019 Democratic debate - Vox

Simply put the moderates aren't going after Biden. I was struck by how Klobuchar saved her attacks for Sanders and Warren. It seems the moderates feel Biden will just fade away due to gaffes (as he did the last two times he ran) and therefore don't want to stigma of attacking him.

It's a strategic mistake.

In addition, I read an interesting point from... I think Nate Silver? about why Booker hasn't gotten any traction. His view was that Booker made the error of running in the wrong lane. Booker is running as a progressive who is willing to do moderate things in the interim as opposed to a moderate who has far off progressive ideals. The former is how Warren is positioning herself. The later is how Klobuchar or Buttigieg is. If Booker started off by running as a moderate, he may have been in the 7-8% range instead of the 2-3% range.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I agree, I thought Biden was bad. He stumbles and fumbles. Almost like, if he goes off script, he has no idea what to say and it never turns out well.

That's been Biden for at least 40 years. That isn't an age thing.

[Kodos]

He did seem a bit incoherent at times. Constantly fumbling around for what he was trying to say.

[molson]

My parents are visiting this week, they're both close to 80 and are in decent shape - can do layovers in big airports, walk around town, ect., still - I can't even believe someone as old as Joe Biden wants to and can keep up a campaign schedule.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Kodos

He did seem a bit incoherent at times. Constantly fumbling around for what he was trying to say.

That describes Sanders last night I thought.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's been Biden for at least 40 years. That isn't an age thing.

Not to this degree IMO. Contrast the debate performance for VP in '08 with Palin (just his part of it) with what he's doing now and there's a marked difference I think. Back then he was extremely competent with the occasional gaffe.

[Edward64]

I like Yang, his response seems balanced to me.

I don't know how many times Gillis said bigoted/homophobic comments but if its not a steady pattern, I agree with Yang. If its like every other podcast, that's a different story.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/enter...lis/index.html

News broke that afternoon of Gillis' history of making defamatory comments about Chinese Americans and homosexuals during episodes of his and fellow comedian Matt McCusker's "Matt and Shane's Secret Podcast."
:
:
2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who Gillis referenced with a racial epithet in a May podcast, stated over the weekend that he didn't think Gillis should lose his job.

"I've experienced a lot of anti-Asian racism throughout my upbringing, and it hurts. It's something that is very real, and I do think anti-Asian racial epithets are not taken as seriously as slurs against other groups," Yang said in an appearance on "State of the Union" with CNN's Jake Tapper. "But at the same time, bigger picture, I believe that our country has become excessively punitive and vindictive about remarks that people find offensive or racist and that we need to try and move beyond that, if we can, particularly in a case where the person is, in this case, to me, like a comedian whose words should be taken in a slightly different light."

Gillis is just the latest example of a comedian's past comments and actions gaining new attention in the online world.

[ISiddiqui]

On the other hand that article says:

In one since-deleted video, Gillis says, "Let the f---ing ch--ks live there," of Chinatown. Gillis also mocks a Chinese accent, the language barrier and says, "Chinatown's f---ing nuts.

I can totally understand SNL going... uh, nope after offering him a position. Now if he'd been there a year or two, allowing him to give a contright apology may be ok - but it doesn't seem like Gills even apologized for that.

[NobodyHere]

Another week, another big spending plan:

Sanders unveils $2.5 trillion 'Housing for All' plan



I wish voters cared enough about the deficit to actually demand it gets fixed.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Another week, another big spending plan:

Sanders unveils $2.5 trillion 'Housing for All' plan



I wish voters cared enough about the deficit to actually demand it gets fixed.

There will always be deficits as long as we insist on spending more on our military than the next 7 biggest spending countries combined.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0...nse-comparison

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Kodos

There will always be deficits as long as we insist on spending more on our military than the next 7 biggest spending countries combined.

U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries

I'm all for reducing military spending. I think there's billions upon billions of $ of waste, crony payouts, and that's nothing to say of the 100s of billions spent on military actions we don't need to be doing (and this from someone who is generally a "conservative").

But if military spending is 15% of our budget (as that link you posted states), then the far bigger problem with our deficit is in other areas. And even if we cut military spending to foolhardly minimums, it still wouldn't be enough to eliminate the deficit.

I would argue the far bigger problem is presidential candidates (of both parties) who promise massive "new programs" compounding on top of one another, over and over, until we're buried in debt.

I agree with the original poster - I'd like to see a candidate who actually presents a "plan" for dealing with our spending problem. Until then, they all sound like a bunch of alcoholics ("spend"-aholics) saying, "Our real problem financially is that our mortgage is too high." No, the real problem is your spending habit.

[albionmoonlight]

The problem with reducing the deficit is that we live in a democracy. And, as a result, the things driving the deficit are popular. We've already cut the unpopular things because they were unpopular and easy to cut.

Our deficit is driven by

Social Security spending
Medicare spending
military spending
low taxes

Unfortunately for deficit hawks, all four of those things are super popular, so it is hard to win elections promising to reduce/eliminate them.

You end up with every politician promising to eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse." And, sure, we are all against those things. But the easy to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse have already been gotten rid of. There's not much left there but rhetoric.

And you have a lot of politicians vaguely implying that the issue is "welfare" spending or Obama giving phones away to poor people or something--basically some version of "You know those people who look differently from you? They have way too much money and it isn't fair, and we will take it back from them and it won't affect you in the least." And I can see how that plays very well politically. But it does nothing to actually solve the deficit. It isn't true, and even if it were, there's not enough money there to make any difference.

The way to actually reduce the deficit is conceptually easy--cut Social Security, Medicare, and military spending and raise taxes. But if someone actually runs on that platform, they will end up the answer to a trivia question: "Which candidate received the lowest number of votes ever in a presidential election?"

[revrew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The problem with reducing the deficit is that we live in a democracy. And, as a result, the things driving the deficit are popular. .... etc.

And now we have presidential candidates running who are ALSO offering federally funded:

- Health Care for all
- College education
- Housing
- etc.

It seems to come down to, "Who is willing to bribe me the most (with my own money) to get my vote?"

Which really comes down to: Who is willing to spend us into financial ruin the fastest?

I know I lean Republican, so I don't have much standing to talk in this particular thread, but if Trump weren't such an awful human being, I would hope America would be smart enough to laugh every one of these Dem candidates off the stage. These ideas are wildly fiscally irresponsible and not even remotely pragmatic without astronomical tax increases and complete, socialist revolution (at least Bernie is honest about it!). Alas, America falls for the "chicken in my pot" line all too often, and alas, the only currently viable alternative ... is Trump.

[Butter]

Trump, who is also spending us into oblivion.

Mmmm, that's good rationalization

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Butter

Trump, who is also spending us into oblivion.

Mmmm, that's good rationalization

Don't mistake my point. It wasn't to rationalize support of Trump. It's that our choices are between people who are making laughable, economy-wrecking, stupid-level spending promises ... or Trump (who has overseen irresponsible spending levels as well). My point was exactly that we're being given an awful choice.

[QuikSand]

I at least pretend to be concerned about the budget deficit and our spending/revenue disconnect. Not sure my hands are completely clean, as that is a hard position to adopt as an absolute, but intellectually I believe that fiscal prudence is important.

That said... I believe there's an important difference between just launching a new spending plan, and suggesting that that function should be paid for publicly rather than privately. Health care is the obvious example.

If we are talking about the costs of health care, and are only willing to consider government spending and the taxes to support them, that's alarmingly short sighted. Obviously, we are all paying for health care in multiple ways - premiums that both employers and employees pay to insurance carriers, heightened insurance rates due to uncompensated care flowing through to those who do pay, and direct out-pf-pocket costs to consumers. We already pay for health care. If (just as a strawman, relax) we adopt a plan that eliminates $40 trillion in those costs, and relieve employers and employees and families of those costs, and replace them with $30 trillion in new government spending funded by $30 trillion in new taxes to deliver equivalent health care... we are financially ahead as a country. But that change sounds laughably bad if all you look at is the artificially narrow question of "will taxes go up?"

The moderators of the Democratic debates, incidentally, have been fueling this fire, trying to pigeonhole the Medicare-for-all supporters into agreeing taxes would go up. Its defenders are absolutely right to try to respond "you'll pay $15,000 less in premiums, and $10,000 more in taxes... good trade, right?" but they come off as weasels when doing so.

(break)

There are honest debates to be had about whether good and services should be paid for by the user, or by the society. We want to subsidize immunizations against communicable diseases, as a relatively easy-to-follow example, because forcing each family to pay full freight might reduce their willingness to get them, and that causes dangerous and costly public health risks. Honest people can disagree what other things belong toward the "society pays" end of that spectrum - on health care, education, housing, and so forth. You don't have to be a greedy shit, nor a complete idiot, nor a pandering liar, to take the position that, for example, tuition-free state college tuition would benefit society enough to make it worth paying for through taxes.

[Kodos]

Don't forget his massive tax cut for those who need it the least!

[QuikSand]

Oh, and incidentally, I happen to think that the best way to beat Trump in 2020 is to steer away from the super-aggressive stuff. Focus on the public option add-on to the ACA, rather than MFA. Try to appeal to suburbanites who voted Obama-Trump-Blue in 12-16-18.

[ISiddiqui]

Though there are some that see 2016 and 2018 and think riling up your base to get out to vote is the best strategy. And, it has indeed worked for Republicans. If you get people excited in your corner, they'll turn out in banner numbers - and one way to do that is to stand for big ideas they like.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by revrew

Don't mistake my point. It wasn't to rationalize support of Trump. It's that our choices are between people who are making laughable, economy-wrecking, stupid-level spending promises ... or Trump (who has overseen irresponsible spending levels as well). My point was exactly that we're being given an awful choice.

I think part of the problem is that you've (not just you but many others) been conditioned for so long as a Republican that Democrats=taxes=bad to really look more specifically at the policies themselves, as QS lays out a bit above.

I know that from a social policy perspective your chance of supporting a Dem is pretty non-existent, but this waving away Dems as having "laughable, economy-wrecking, stupid-level spending promises" does so without real examination of the plans themselves.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Oh, and incidentally, I happen to think that the best way to beat Trump in 2020 is to steer away from the super-aggressive stuff. Focus on the public option add-on to the ACA, rather than MFA. Try to appeal to suburbanites who voted Obama-Trump-Blue in 12-16-18.

I'm pretty liberal, but I agree. Let's try to improve on and build on Obamacare. Maybe try for Medicare for All down the road if the country shifts bluer.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Butter

I know that from a social policy perspective your chance of supporting a Dem is pretty non-existent, but this waving away Dems as having "laughable, economy-wrecking, stupid-level spending promises" does so without real examination of the plans themselves.

Although there isn't a single party support spending plan that I know of, candidates like Bernie Sanders have a spending plan for healthcare, housing, green new deal, and college, which when added up is in the tens of trillions.

[molson]

The more moderate administrations end up compromising to something that is basically conservative. Maybe a further left administration compromises to something that is moderate?

I don't really know anymore. The last few years have changed what I thought I knew about how this all worked. We saw candidates, for years and years, typically move to the center after getting their party's nomination. Which made sense, they were competing for the middle. Now, it seems like they're just competing for turnout. I don't share a lot of political views with some of the further left candidates, but, I wouldn't mind seeing one of them get the nomination.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Miracle Max

The funny thing about all of this is that SNL hired him because they wanted to appeal to conservatives when he's just tossing out racial slurs and making jokes about how Chinese restaurants use MSG. Like forget about political correctness or whatever - that joke has been old for like 30 years and his reaction to it is "sorry for pushing the boundaries of comedy." That's the epitome of an affirmative action hire where someone gets one of the most prestigious comedy jobs out there despite not being funny.

This is the guy they thought would appeal to conservatives?

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...fter-snl-axing

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Butter

I think part of the problem is that you've (not just you but many others) been conditioned for so long as a Republican that Democrats=taxes=bad to really look more specifically at the policies themselves ...

... this waving away Dems as having "laughable, economy-wrecking, stupid-level spending promises" does so without real examination of the plans themselves.

On your first point, you're right. I would argue the majority of the electorate has come to accept partisan vilifying (my party good, your party bad) as accurate, and therefore don't critically think about either their party or the opposing party.

On the second point, I would argue I have looked at the plans (not of all Dems; just those currently running for POTUS). And I do honestly believe they are "laughable, economy-wrecking, stupid-level spending." And it has nothing to do with how my personal taxes are going to go up or down. I think these "free" solutions (whether it be health care, college, housing, or whatnot) would be ultimately very bad for America, and I think history and human nature provide plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.

As for health care, I would argue the Republicans broke it (with help) and Democrats are proposing a solution that's even worse. I would rather see it fixed, rather than revolutionized. But that's a WHOLE 'nother thread, and I've threadjacked this one enough.

Thanks, y'all, for a more reasonable discussion than I could hope to find just about anywhere else online.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This is the guy they thought would appeal to conservatives?

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...fter-snl-axing

I think this part of the article sums up what was going on there

"That's when Gillis pivoted to his joke about Trump being shot in an attempt to prove to his audience he's not "too pro-Trump."

He's a total hack. When he's trying to be "edgy" he does it in the most hacky way possible - racial slurs or joking about the president getting shot.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

He's a total hack. When he's trying to be "edgy" he does it in the most hacky way possible - racial slurs or joking about the president getting shot.

I have not seen the bit, but apparently he makes a joke about how Chinese food contains too much MSG?

I mean, I'm 43 years old, and that joke was already kind of old and outdated when I was a kid.

I'm not sure your comedy is really on the cutting edge when people need to explain the jokes with "Back in the 1970s as Chinese food was becoming more popular in the United States . . . "

[Butter]

Originally Posted by revrew

I think these "free" solutions (whether it be health care, college, housing, or whatnot) would be ultimately very bad for America, and I think history and human nature provide plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.

I would then argue that we have spent a very very long time giving away free solutions to supposedly capitalist institutions. Auto bailouts. Farming handouts (which I'm not totally against in certain circumstances). Corporate welfare. Low or zero tax burdens to corporations willing to locate in certain areas. Sports team owners. The list goes on.

At what point, instead of subsidizing the rich, do we start investing more in the lower and middle class, a place where the VAST majority of Americans lie?

Yeah, you are going to have freeloaders. It goes with the territory. What's worse, 10 million lower class sucking off the teat of American "giveaways", or 1,000 people basically running the government by corporate fiat?

If you really want the USA to lead in the coming tech heavy, robotic future, then lowering the barrier of access to college is a great way to go. Lowering the barrier to healthcare is a great way to keep your citizens healthy and prolong their lives, which coincidentally is good for a capitalist society, as it prolongs their working lives as well.

But free stuff=bad because the GOP says so, despite the fact that the amount spent on healthcare as a % of GDP would actually decrease. OK.

[JPhillips]

It drives me nuts that there isn't a Dem running just on the traditional Dem, highly popular stances. Public option, some gun control, abortion with late term restrictions, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc., all poll very well. Just run on those ideas and accept incremental change. Way too many Dems are in the all or nothing camp, but they are the ones that probably control the primaries.

Somehow we've ended up in a situation where Dems won't commit to doing things that are popular and GOPers commit to only things that are unpopular, but win because they at least stand for something.

edit: I should add that personally I think the two most important topics are climate change and preservation of democracy, and there's plenty of options there that are also very popular and traditionally Dem friendly.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: I should add that personally I think the two most important topics are climate change and preservation of democracy

Economy (including global/technological competitiveness), Healthcare & Immigration reform are the top 3 for me.

Couple other contenders ...

Deficit reduction would be in the top tier also but is there anyone really talking about it?

Also rebuilding relationships with our allies but I think once Trump is gone, it will be automatic when our allies welcome us back from our schizophrenia the past 4 (or 8) years.

Free Higher Education and bailout/forgiveness of student loans is at the bottom.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Butter

I would then argue that we have spent a very very long time giving away free solutions to supposedly capitalist institutions. Auto bailouts. Farming handouts (which I'm not totally against in certain circumstances). Corporate welfare. Low or zero tax burdens to corporations willing to locate in certain areas. Sports team owners. The list goes on.

...

Yeah, you are going to have freeloaders. It goes with the territory. What's worse, 10 million lower class sucking off the teat of American "giveaways"

...

But free stuff=bad because the GOP says so ...

First segment: There's something we actually agree on.

Second segment: Complete strawman. I don't think like that, and it has nothing to do with reasonable objections to current proposed "free" giveaways.

Third segment: No, I argue against most of the newly proposed free stuff because the drawbacks and negative consequences, I believe, outweigh the benefits.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter

I would then argue that we have spent a very very long time giving away free solutions to supposedly capitalist institutions. Auto bailouts. Farming handouts (which I'm not totally against in certain circumstances). Corporate welfare. Low or zero tax burdens to corporations willing to locate in certain areas. Sports team owners. The list goes on.

At what point, instead of subsidizing the rich, do we start investing more in the lower and middle class, a place where the VAST majority of Americans lie?

Butter 2020!!

Seriously though (because I don't think Butter wants the job... ) I mean a lot of this 'free stuff' are things provided in countries like Germany where the economy has been pretty damned good. So not economy wrecking, but in many ways, economy bolstering (I mean free education especially).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It drives me nuts that there isn't a Dem running just on the traditional Dem, highly popular stances. Public option, some gun control, abortion with late term restrictions, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc., all poll very well.

"Traditional" Dem? How far back are you looking at this traditional Democratic view? Because this sounds more like a Clinton/Obama Third Way sort of thing, which was considered a new way to be a Democrat (it was even called the New Democrat Coalition, IIRC).

I may argue that something like a Medicare For All would fit in the traditional Democratic playbook - the Democrats who created the New Deal and Great Society, which is far more traditional than Third-Way Democrats (though I'm probably more third way than traditional Dem).

[Butter]

Originally Posted by revrew

Third segment: No, I argue against most of the newly proposed free stuff because the drawbacks and negative consequences, I believe, outweigh the benefits.

Please elaborate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

"Traditional" Dem? How far back are you looking at this traditional Democratic view? Because this sounds more like a Clinton/Obama Third Way sort of thing, which was considered a new way to be a Democrat (it was even called the New Democrat Coalition, IIRC).

I may argue that something like a Medicare For All would fit in the traditional Democratic playbook - the Democrats who created the New Deal and Great Society, which is far more traditional than Third-Way Democrats (though I'm probably more third way than traditional Dem).

Medicare for All as a replacement for private insurance isn't that popular. A public option is very popular. I'd like to get to a single-payer system, but jumping directly there won't happen in the near future. I like fighting for it, explaining it, setting the ground for it, but Dems need to be able to accept moving towards a goal rather than seeing a half-step as a failure.

Dems will get killed by a "They want to take your insurance away" attack if the candidate running agrees with the basic sentiment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I like fighting for it, explaining it, setting the ground for it

You mean like Obamacare . The public option was initially part of it, of course.

That was pilloried as well... and is still being done so.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Butter

Please elaborate.

While it would be a major threadjack to go into each of them and debate them in detail, I'll just paint with some broad strokes as to why I believe it so:

1. Our Constitution is the only legal document under which the American people have consented to be governed. That document was specifically designed to bind and limit the federal government (federal, mind you, the states I would concede have more latitude) from infringing upon individual rights. To give the feds the exclusive purse strings for health care and education (for example) also gives the fed govt a very liberty-infringing control over individual lives. This not only radically transforms America as a nation, but also further diminishes the restraints of the Constitution and makes us more of a democracy than a republic. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that democracy was nation-destroying, and I agree with them. Democracy is neither sustainable, nor just. A democratic republic still is the best form of government invented by man and America's best hope for a sustainable future.

2. A few years ago, when I was a Medicaid recipient, I learned that here in Iowa, the feds pay only about 30% on Medicaid claims. Consequently, not only are privately insured patients picking up the tab on the remaining 70%, but many doctors simply stopped taking Medicaid patients. I had to drive nearly 2 hours to find a dentist. Waiting times, substandard care, a lack of ability to choose your own doctor, even a loss of incentive toward medical technology investment - all these things are a reality, not a scare tactic, if we give the govt the purse strings. Reform is needed (desperately needed - I acknowledge often that Democrats seem to recognize all the right problems, just have all the wrong answers), not revolution.

3. Our nation's debt position is unsustainable, financially and in terms of national security (debt to other nations). And every "entitlement" program we've taken has been nearly impossible to stop, because ... human nature. From Social Security, to Medicare, to federally run roads and parks, etc., once we put America on the teat, it doesn't unlatch. Taking on multiple trillions in new annual "entitlement" programs will only make deficit and debt so permanent, eventual bankruptcy will be inevitable. Winston Churchill was right, "The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money."

4. Consolidation of finance is consolidation of power; and consolidation of power is an evil to the masses. Yes, big business has too much power in America (primarily because they have too much influence on government). But shifting the power to government is no better. In the history of the world, government leaders asking the people to trade away liberty for security have always led to tyranny. What REALLY needs to happen is to restore power and liberty to the people. That means returning to the Constitution, not ignoring it, and enacting measures that put economic choice in the hand of the individual, not the collective.

5. I hardly trust the people who run the post office, military, and DMV taking over health care, education, housing, etc.

6. I consider endless borrowing, with no intention of paying back a moral wrong. Further, I consider govt leaders who make no effort to spend within a balanced budget negligent of their duty. America is overloaded with debt as it is, and I don't want to contribute to the generation that buried our own grandchildren in inescapable debt. While it looks compassionate now to provide everyone with everything they need out of the public coffers, it will look merely selfish when the govt/economy collapses xyz years down the road, and our descendants have no country left. I still have in a drawer at home, over 6 million German marks, all printed during a time when a loaf of bread could cost a wheelbarrow full of money. And those marks have no value today (other than historical), because an economy - and a government - collapsed.

If you've read this far in my diatribe, thanks.

I can't monitor this thread much more, but I hope I've presented these ideas in a reasonable and respectful manner.

If it was only an island of Republican thought in a Democrat thread, perhaps it simply leads to more understanding.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You mean like Obamacare . The public option was initially part of it, of course.

That was pilloried as well... and is still being done so.

But Obamacare with a "Medicare for all who want it" type plan would be even more popular than it is now, which it is pretty popular, btw. Just because politicians blasts it, doesn't make it unpopular. There should have been a public option from the beginning, and Medicare expansion should have been mandatory. Obama did give on things that he shouldn't have.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by revrew

2. A few years ago, when I was a Medicaid recipient, I learned that here in Iowa, the feds pay only about 30% on Medicaid claims. Consequently, not only are privately insured patients picking up the tab on the remaining 70%, but many doctors simply stopped taking Medicaid patients. I had to drive nearly 2 hours to find a dentist. Waiting times, substandard care, a lack of ability to choose your own doctor, even a loss of incentive toward medical technology investment - all these things are a reality, not a scare tactic, if we give the govt the purse strings. Reform is needed (desperately needed - I acknowledge often that Democrats seem to recognize all the right problems, just have all the wrong answers), not revolution.

This logic doesn't make any sense to me. Your fear is that once every American has government provided healthcare doctors will refuse to treat anybody on government healthcare, and all doctors will immediately start giving substandard care?

I'm certainly not surprised that doctors and providers will chase private money rather than government controls given the choice, but it's that broken market dynamic that assures all of the worst talent is funneled to the low-paying public sector. If you gave everybody equal coverage and placed nation-wide government controls on the costs doctors & providers wouldn't have any reason to be basing the quality of your care on the level of your particular insurance coverage.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This logic doesn't make any sense to me. Your fear is that once every American government provided healthcare doctors will refuse to treat anybody on government healthcare?

Medicaid is not a very good system, mainly because it is administered by the states. Many doctors do not take it because they are slow to pay, and pay very little. Medicare on the other hand is taken by almost everyone. It is administered federally, pays close if slightly lower than most health insurance for most things, and they pay about as fast as most insurance companies. In this case, federal administration is by far superior to leaving it to the states.

[Butter]

Thanks for replying, revrew. I do have some thoughts but no time right now. Hopefully we can continue this discussion in future.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You mean like Obamacare . The public option was initially part of it, of course.

That was pilloried as well... and is still being done so.

Right, at least on the left because Dems can't handle incremental progress. Obamacare got close to a public option, and now that idea is very popular. Incremental progress. A public option will make single-payer more likely, it isn't an either or.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by revrew

5. I hardly trust the people who run the post office, military, and DMV taking over health care, education, housing, etc.

The Postal system is fucking amazing. For fifty-five cents you can have a piece of paper hand-delivered to anyone, anywhere in the country. That's a damned miracle.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Postal system is fucking amazing. For fifty-five cents you can have a piece of paper hand-delivered to anyone, anywhere in the country. That's a damned miracle.

Forget it, he's rolling

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Postal system is fucking amazing. For fifty-five cents you can have a piece of paper hand-delivered to anyone, anywhere in the country. That's a damned miracle.

Except when the post office closes my brother's account for no reason when baseball tickets are being delivered.

[thesloppy]

Amazon's delivery driver pool of morons have made me appreciate USPS even more.