2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So you're saying that the Democratic party conspired with Mayor Pete and an a small tech company to intentionally sabotage the Iowa caucus so....the results would take a few extra days to come out? When did this criminal alliance form? Was Mayor Pete identified and groomed prior to becoming mayor or was it something that was developed more recently, after he decided to run for president?

Tell me more, I love this shit.

I'm not a Bernie supporter. I just realize that party is going to do whatever they can in their power to stop him from winning. Too much money at stake.

Explain the Nevada debacle last year if it wasn't about a preference toward a candidate? Why can they suddenly not figure out who won a caucus that's been taking place for hundreds of years?

You can read for yourself what they thought of Bernie and what they did within the DNC. The e-mail database is right here.

Some highlights from those e-mails here.

Are you really arguing that there is nothing behind the scenes of the DNC to keep Bernie down?

[RainMaker]

Bernie posts his tax plan on his site in the open. You can plug in your numbers and see if you'd be paying more or less.

Bernie's tax plan

I get if people don't want it but playing dumb like you can't figure out a marginal tax rate seems disingenuous.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not a Bernie supporter. I just realize that party is going to do whatever they can in their power to stop him from winning. Too much money at stake.

Explain the Nevada debacle last year if it wasn't about a preference toward a candidate? Why can they suddenly not figure out who won a caucus that's been taking place for hundreds of years?

You can read for yourself what they thought of Bernie and what they did within the DNC. The e-mail database is right here.

Some highlights from those e-mails here.

Are you really arguing that there is nothing behind the scenes of the DNC to keep Bernie down?

I just don't understand how it's possible to be a non-Bernie Democrat if you think the party is rigging everything. Even though I disagree with them, I kind of understand the Bernie supporters wanting to burn everything down (including perhaps Milwaukee at the convention) considering what they believe about what the party has done.

I mean, that level of corruption is bigger than anything you correctly accuse the Republicans of doing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I just don't understand how it's possible to be a non-Bernie Democrat if you think the party is rigging everything. Even though I disagree with them, I kind of understand the Bernie supporters wanting to burn everything down (including perhaps Milwaukee at the convention) considering what they believe about what the party has done.

I mean, that level of corruption is bigger than anything you correctly accuse the Republicans of doing.

Maybe what you said is the reason why Democrats get their ass kicked all the time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I just don't understand how it's possible to be a non-Bernie Democrat if you think the party is rigging everything. Even though I disagree with them, I kind of understand the Bernie supporters wanting to burn everything down (including perhaps Milwaukee at the convention) considering what they believe about what the party has done.

I mean, that level of corruption is bigger than anything you correctly accuse the Republicans of doing.

Right. If you do believe this craziness then you should be railing against the Democratic Party night and day and be angry Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination instead of running third party.

[RainMaker]

You can't win as a third party in this country. The two parties have rigged it so.

[ISiddiqui]

Well apparently you think you can't win in the Democratic Party either so what's the difference?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well apparently you think you can't win in the Democratic Party either so what's the difference?

Almost like it's not much of a democracy at all.

[RainMaker]

Remember how the Democrats changed the rules specifically for Mike Bloomberg the other day? A guy who endorsed W and was the keynote speaker at the Republican Convention in 2004.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Iowa this year hired a company tied to Mayor Pete to build an unnecessary app. This app magically failed when the realization that Bernie did well. They slowly released results the next couple days that showed Pete in the lead. There were huge discrepancies in the reporting too that all seemingly benefited a certain candidate.

This is just ridiculous bullshit. Pete gave money to a tech company for text messaging outreach (4th place Biden did as well). If anything, the app's failure hurt Pete since he didn't get the normal election night declaration of victory and damaged the reputation of the normally important caucus that he just won.

For the record, Bernie had a larger vote margin in Iowa than he did in New Hampshire last night yet practically no one in the party acknowledges him as the winner.

Caucuses work differently and they've traditionally announced the winner of the delegates rather than the winner of the popular vote. If you go back and look at past caucus results, popular vote totals aren't listed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Remember how the Democrats changed the rules specifically for Mike Bloomberg the other day?

The guy is literally 3rd in national polling right now. He has just crossed Warren. Him not being on the debate stage with that support is ridiculous.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is just ridiculous bullshit. Pete gave money to a tech company for text messaging outreach (4th place Biden did as well). If anything, the app's failure hurt Pete since he didn't get the normal election night declaration of victory and damaged the reputation of the normally important caucus that he just won.

That much is true, and I can't stand Buttigieg. Delaying Iowa results blunted his numbers. Buttigieg has an argument that he may have done even better in New Hampshire if Iowa hadn't fucked up so badly.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Come on. You're generally a conservative to libertarian. You never felt Day 1, you've always been against Bernie.

When Bernie was an independent, I was initially interested - but I didn't know much about him. I do like his rhetoric on things - I just think he goes a little too far. I like expanding health care- but I'm not sure we need to throw away employer subsidized care that helps a big chunk of the US to get more coverage. I like having lower tuition for state schools, but I don't think it should be free. I think we need some additional environmental regulations and should incentivize higher MPG vehicles, but I don't think we should go the carbon tax route.

If you could come up with a "60-70% Bernie", I might prefer him. He just goes too far and is just too anti-business across the board.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The guy is literally 3rd in national polling right now. He has just crossed Warren. Him not being on the debate stage with that support is ridiculous.

And there were reports that some candidates had complained to the DNC, including Warren, because they weren't able to fight back against Bloomberg if he wasn't in the debates.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

When Bernie was an independent, I was initially interested - but I didn't know much about him. I do like his rhetoric on things - I just think he goes a little too far. I like expanding health care- but I'm not sure we need to throw away employer subsidized care that helps a big chunk of the US to get more coverage. I like having lower tuition for state schools, but I don't think it should be free. I think we need some additional environmental regulations and should incentivize higher MPG vehicles, but I don't think we should go the carbon tax route.

If you could come up with a "60-70% Bernie", I might prefer him. He just goes too far and is just too anti-business across the board.

You basically just described Joe Biden (I guess Amy Klobuchar as well).

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some corners of Bernie-ville are straight up conspiracy theory land.

Yep. Its really frustrating. So are the Trumper-like social media brigades against anyone who says anything they don't like about Bernie. With Warren flailing I'm ready to jump in to Bernie's camp but its not a 100% comfortable jump.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is just ridiculous bullshit. Pete gave money to a tech company for text messaging outreach (4th place Biden did as well). If anything, the app's failure hurt Pete since he didn't get the normal election night declaration of victory and damaged the reputation of the normally important caucus that he just won.

He didn't win.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The guy is literally 3rd in national polling right now. He has just crossed Warren. Him not being on the debate stage with that support is ridiculous.

Then don't make the rules in the first place. Don't set up a set of rules that all the candidates had to abide by, many of which couldn't participate in debates because of them, and then throw them out when a billionaire cuts you a check.

Perez is the idiot who said we will never change the rules. Then did so the minute he got a check.

Remember that Bloomberg isn't even on the fucking ballot in Nevada which this debate is for.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

When Bernie was an independent, I was initially interested - but I didn't know much about him. I do like his rhetoric on things - I just think he goes a little too far. I like expanding health care- but I'm not sure we need to throw away employer subsidized care that helps a big chunk of the US to get more coverage. I like having lower tuition for state schools, but I don't think it should be free. I think we need some additional environmental regulations and should incentivize higher MPG vehicles, but I don't think we should go the carbon tax route.

If you could come up with a "60-70% Bernie", I might prefer him. He just goes too far and is just too anti-business across the board.

There is no such thing as employer-subsidized health care. It is part of your overall compensation. They are not paying for it out of the goodness of their heart.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He didn't win.

Yes he did. The popular vote has never mattered in the Iowa caucus system. You can argue that's a dumb system (I'd agree), but it's what's been in place for a long time, well before Bernie ran for President. In fact, Bernie likes the caucus system, since he did better in those in 2016.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yes he did. The popular vote has never mattered in the Iowa caucus system. You can argue that's a dumb system (I'd agree), but it's what's been in place for a long time, well before Bernie ran for President. In fact, Bernie likes the caucus system, since he did better in those in 2016.

The Iowa Caucus was riddled with inconsistencies and errors.

An analysis by The New York Times revealed inconsistencies in the reported data for at least one in six of the state’s precincts. Those errors occurred at every stage of the tabulation process: in recording votes, in calculating and awarding delegates, and in entering the data into the state party’s database. Hundreds of state delegate equivalents, the metric the party uses to determine delegates for the national convention, were at stake in these precincts.

In the Times review of the data, at least 10 percent of precincts appeared to have improperly allocated their delegates, based on reported vote totals. In some cases, precincts awarded more delegates than they had to give; in others, they awarded fewer. More than two dozen precincts appeared to give delegates to candidates who did not qualify as viable under the caucus rules.

But at least they can go back and correct all those errors. Wait, no they can't.

IDP Chair Troy Price answers question about why the party can’t change mathematical problems on the caucus night worksheets in the results: pic.twitter.com/o8z0dV9bcO

— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) February 10, 2020

I'll say the guy who had the most people who wanted him to win is the winner. Not some imbeciles who can't do basic math and apparently can't correct those errors when smarter people tell them how.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no such thing as employer-subsidized health care. It is part of your overall compensation. They are not paying for it out of the goodness of their heart.

Given the tax savings they get, they kind of are. I don't want to start this debate again - but if my company dropped health coverage tomorrow - there is a 0% chance I would a raise to match that benefit. At best, i would get a raise to match 30% of it and then be out 70% and have to pay for the government coverage (which would be worse). I've talked to our finance and HR people in planning about this. It's no big deal to them - either they pay the full benefit (and get the massive writeoff) or they give the employees 25-30% (if even that) and have no writeoff. They would prefer the current system as it would cost about the same and they could assure their people have good health care - but it's not a big deal financially either way.

[Arles]

Here’s some info:

Reasons to Purchase Group Coverage | Health Coverage Guide by Small Business Majority

Generally speaking, any expenses an employer incurs related to health insurance (for employees or for dependents) are 100% tax-deductible as ordinary business expenses, on both state and federal income taxes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Given the tax savings they get, they kind of are. I don't want to start this debate again - but if my company dropped health coverage tomorrow - there is a 0% chance I would a raise to match that benefit. At best, i would get a raise to match 30% of it and then be out 70% and have to pay for the government coverage (which would be worse). I've talked to our finance and HR people in planning about this. It's no big deal to them - either they pay the full benefit (and get the massive writeoff) or they give the employees 25-30% (if even that) and have no writeoff. They would prefer the current system as it would cost about the same and they could assure their people have good health care - but it's not a big deal financially either way.

Salary is a write-off just like health insurance premiums. Your finance guy should take a Freshman level accounting course. Your salary wouldn't increase at a 1:1 because premiums are pre-tax deductions, but it would go up a considerable amount.

Health insurance is considered part of compensation by every major company in the world. If it wasn't, as you suggest, why in the world would they offer it to employees? Out of the goodness of their heart?

And maybe your company wouldn't raise your salary, but a competitor would to poach talent.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here’s some info:

Reasons to Purchase Group Coverage | Health Coverage Guide by Small Business Majority

Salaries are also business expenses so I'm not seeing your point.

Also, I thought I had good health insurance up until the point my special needs son was diagnosed. It's been a constant fight getting anything covered ever since. I was just fighting with a claim rep today... apparently the tonsillectomy he was recommended is an elective procedure. They're fucking scum.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here’s some info:

Reasons to Purchase Group Coverage | Health Coverage Guide by Small Business Majority

You know what else is "100% tax-deductible as ordinary business expenses, on both state and federal income taxes"? Employee salaries.

[RainMaker]

Just an example. Let's say you make $50,000 in your job. The company also covers $5,000 a year in health insurance premiums. They are paying $55,000 to keep you employed.

If you went to them and said I no longer need insurance, I would like a raise of $5,000 a year, why would they say no? They would be paying you the same amount of money minus the health insurance paperwork.

[thesloppy]

I think there is some truth to both sides here. Yes, health care is part of your current compensation and should be considered as such, but any suggestion that the government would side with the individual over corporations, and make sure that void gets filled in your favor, should M4A come to pass in the future, sure seems like wishful thinking to me.

The suggestion that some companies would be willing and able to match your previous level of total compensation in order to keep and/or poach talent certainly rings true, I just hesitate to believe that our government would put forth a solution which put the burden on corporations rather than one that puts the burden on individuals, even if we get a progressive in the White House.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Iowa Caucus was riddled with inconsistencies and errors.





But at least they can go back and correct all those errors. Wait, no they can't.

IDP Chair Troy Price answers question about why the party can’t change mathematical problems on the caucus night worksheets in the results: pic.twitter.com/o8z0dV9bcO

— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) February 10, 2020

Doesn't your video contradict what you said? They are going to fix them, but they have to go through an official recount process because the campaigns (including Bernie's) signed off on them.

I'll say the guy who had the most people who wanted him to win is the winner. Not some imbeciles who can't do basic math and apparently can't correct those errors when smarter people tell them how.

Was Hillary the winner in the 2016 general election? The nomination is a battle for delegates, so the person who gets most delegates is the winner. And as I said, the popular vote has never once mattered in the Iowa caucuses.

But this is all a distraction from my point. Networks have reported Pete as the winner. Without the app failure, Pete would've been reported the winner on election night. So the app failure hurt him instead of helping him.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think there is some truth to both sides here. Yes, health care is part of your current compensation and should be considered as such, but any suggestion that the government would side with the individual over corporations, and make sure that void gets filled in your favor, should M4A come to pass in the future, sure seems like wishful thinking to me.

The suggestion that some companies would be willing and able to match your previous level of total compensation in order to keep and/or poach talent certainly rings true, I just hesitate to believe that our government would put forth a solution which put the burden on corporations rather than one that puts the burden on individuals, even if we get a progressive in the White House.

For the last few decades economists have been saying the system of employer funded health insurance, bolstered by tax writeoffs, is a bad system. For one it hides the true cost of insurance from individuals. Two, it hinders employee mobility - tying them to jobs that may not be as good (in terms of advancement) for the health benefits.

I doubt employers would increase salaries to cover the full amount of health care initially, but it would make things far more transparent in terms of compensation. In the long run it would make things far more clear and companies would compete more on salary than on salary & health care.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Salary is a write-off just like health insurance premiums. Your finance guy should take a Freshman level accounting course. Your salary wouldn't increase at a 1:1 because premiums are pre-tax deductions, but it would go up a considerable amount.

Health insurance is considered part of compensation by every major company in the world. If it wasn't, as you suggest, why in the world would they offer it to employees? Out of the goodness of their heart?

And maybe your company wouldn't raise your salary, but a competitor would to poach talent.

The employer subsidized cost of my family health care cost was $12,535 last year. Let's say I made $100,000 (for easy math). The employee (me) never sees that $12K on their paycheck - so if it went away tomorrow, most people wouldn't realize that was the amount of their employer-provided health care (you have to look it up on your W2). Therefore, employers won't feel obligated to give all 10-12K back to the employee. As I said, we would probably give a 3-5% raise (3-5K in this case) to "offset" that benefit. That would mean I would lose $10K of that cost and then be forced to pay more in taxes to cover M4A and get much worse coverage. That's a $10-15K per year hit on people who had good coverage.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not keep employer-subsidized coverage and use tax subsidies to incentivize companies to cover people not covered by their employer. Right now, Medicare costs amount to 15% of the entire Gov't Budget (with 46% of that cost coming from the general fund) and it only covers around 18% of the population. If we suddenly changed to 100% covered - they expense would be catastrophic. We would need massive tax increases and the coverage would drop significantly for most people on Employer care. I just don't understand the logic in increasing the cost (and decreasing the coverage) for half the country that currently had employer-subsidized health care. Plus, there is no proof that going to M4A will result in decreased medical costs and you are making a big gamble that it will. once the cat is out of the bag and employers no longer provide health insurance, it would be very difficult to roll all that back if it becomes a financial disaster.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure there's no chance of M4A passing Congress any time soon, but I'm equally sure that if it were able to pass, a stick or carrot to businesses could also be passed to shift that insurance money to salary.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not keep employer-subsidized coverage and use tax subsidies to incentivize companies to cover people not covered by their employer. Right now, Medicare costs amount to 15% of the entire Gov't Budget (with 46% of that cost coming from the general fund) and it only covers around 18% of the population. If we suddenly changed to 100% covered - they expense would be catastrophic. We would need massive tax increases and the coverage would drop significantly for most people on Employer care. I just don't understand the logic in increasing the cost (and decreasing the coverage) for half the country that currently had employer-subsidized health care. Plus, there is no proof that going to M4A will result in decreased medical costs and you are making a big gamble that it will. once the cat is out of the bag and employers no longer provide health insurance, it would be very difficult to roll all that back if it becomes a financial disaster.

Healthcare is part of total compensation and also subsidized by the company, I don't see it as either or.

I don't know if M4A is the right answer but do want a robust Public Option at the very least. Healthcare should be more like how pensions evolved into 401k/IRA, it should be more portable.

Obamacare is not perfect and do think more things can be done. More needs to be done reforming the Payer, Provider and Pharma industries. All 3 industries are bloated with inefficiencies and (my wording) arrogance.

Start with transparency, easy reference charts on how much a procedure will cost me (or estimated cost/range) with a Dr. or Provider. When I go to the optometrist or dentist, they can tell me how much their services will cost me out of pocket. When I go to a hospital or clinic, they say "we don't know right now, we will bill you whatever insurance does not cover" ... I've said it before - what other services do you buy that cannot provide you with some (estimated) cost to you when you wish to buy something?

I will say that our expectations need to be managed also. I've read that there is a ton of money that goes into extending end-of-life by X months. Heck with that, at a certain age ... manage my pain, find a way to make me comfortable, but I do not want extraordinary measures taken at the cost to taxpayers. I rather those funds go to other things. I'll let the medical ethics folks come up with the guidelines.

Bottom line goal should be - baseline affordable & average medical care should be available & portable to everyone; additional private insurance should be available; I should not have to worry about going bankrupt because of unexpected medical conditions

(And to get our government to do this, take away their government healthcare, including retirement, and have them go through similar company subsidized healthcare in the open market)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Obamacare is not perfect and do think more things can be done.

Bottom line goal should be - baseline affordable & average medical care should be available & portable to everyone; additional private insurance should be available; I should not have to worry about going bankrupt because of unexpected medical conditions

Right. One of the problems with the compromises made with the ACA is that people are still subject to private insurance - which may have large deductibles or cost sharing. Not to mention that insurance companies have an incentive in denying procedures even when your doctor says it is necessary. There has been a controversy lately in the news that Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield has started to introduce something called "true emergency" - meaning that if you go to the ER if Anthem doesn't think it was a true emergency, it won't cover any of it. So some people were told to go to the ER by Urgent Care or their Doctors were denied because Anthem didn't think it was a true emergency. They seem to have backed down a little bit because they got sued, but this sort of stuff is what we have to deal with when private insurance is in the mix.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(And to get our government to do this, take away their government healthcare, including retirement, and have them go through similar company subsidized healthcare in the open market)

The good news is that this already happens. I work for the government and get my healthcare through them as my employer. I pick a plan from among those offered by various insurance companies and pay monthly for it, and my employer pays some of the costs. That my employer happens to be the government is neither here nor there. It is the exact same setup I had when I worked in the private sector.

[NobodyHere]

The gaffer gaffes again

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The good news is that this already happens. I work for the government and get my healthcare through them as my employer. I pick a plan from among those offered by various insurance companies and pay monthly for it, and my employer pays some of the costs. That my employer happens to be the government is neither here nor there. It is the exact same setup I had when I worked in the private sector.

Thanks for the clarification. I looked it up and was wrong. Re: the last paragraph on retiree health benefits, do you know if the retiree premiums are comparable to the private sector buying on Obamacare or is it subsidized by the government?

Here is where the U.S. Congress buys its health insurance - Marketplace

Just in case you are wondering, the requirement to use D.C. Health Link instead of continuing to get benefits through FEHB was not in the original Affordable Care Act.

“This is a Republican amendment that was offered during a committee markup of the bill that the Democrats decided to accept,” Corlette said. The amendment was proposed by the aforementioned Grassley. “It was originally conceived as basically saying: ‘If it’s good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.’ If you are going to tell Americans they have to sign up through these exchanges or pay a penalty, you also should [tell] members of Congress. It started out, frankly, as a sort of a political message but the Democrats said: ‘Well, they are probably right.’ They accepted the amendment. It was actually unanimously accepted.”

There is, however, one difference that sets congressional health care benefits apart from those of a typical employer. If the employees meet certain requirements — such as working in Congress for five years prior to their retirement — they are eligible to receive retiree health coverage through the FEHB.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I will say that our expectations need to be managed also. I've read that there is a ton of money that goes into extending end-of-life by X months. Heck with that, at a certain age ... manage my pain, find a way to make me comfortable, but I do not want extraordinary measures taken at the cost to taxpayers. I rather those funds go to other things. I'll let the medical ethics folks come up with the guidelines.

I recall this was described as "Obama's Death Panels".

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks for the clarification. I looked it up and was wrong. Re: the last paragraph on retiree health benefits, do you know if the retiree premiums are comparable to the private sector buying on Obamacare or is it subsidized by the government?

Here is where the U.S. Congress buys its health insurance - Marketplace

I don't know about retiree premiums. Still a couple decades before I need to think about that :-)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

The employer subsidized cost of my family health care cost was $12,535 last year. Let's say I made $100,000 (for easy math). The employee (me) never sees that $12K on their paycheck - so if it went away tomorrow, most people wouldn't realize that was the amount of their employer-provided health care (you have to look it up on your W2). Therefore, employers won't feel obligated to give all 10-12K back to the employee. As I said, we would probably give a 3-5% raise (3-5K in this case) to "offset" that benefit. That would mean I would lose $10K of that cost and then be forced to pay more in taxes to cover M4A and get much worse coverage. That's a $10-15K per year hit on people who had good coverage.

So if employees are too dumb to see the cost of insurance, why offer it at all? Seems a lot cheaper for a company to not offer health insurance and give their employees a few bucks more in their paycheck like you say. They won't know the difference.

In reality, salaries are dependent on market pay rates. If you and your employer feel you are worth $112,535 in compensation, that's what you're worth. If they decide that you are now worth $103,000 in compensation, you wouldn't just accept it. Neither would competitors for labor in your field.

Compensation is part of a market. You don't just magically wipe out a side of that equation and keep going. Everything adjusts.

Originally Posted by Arles

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not keep employer-subsidized coverage and use tax subsidies to incentivize companies to cover people not covered by their employer. Right now, Medicare costs amount to 15% of the entire Gov't Budget (with 46% of that cost coming from the general fund) and it only covers around 18% of the population. If we suddenly changed to 100% covered - they expense would be catastrophic. We would need massive tax increases and the coverage would drop significantly for most people on Employer care. I just don't understand the logic in increasing the cost (and decreasing the coverage) for half the country that currently had employer-subsidized health care. Plus, there is no proof that going to M4A will result in decreased medical costs and you are making a big gamble that it will. once the cat is out of the bag and employers no longer provide health insurance, it would be very difficult to roll all that back if it becomes a financial disaster.

Because the system sucks. Why is our health insurance tied into a company we work for? And because we can look at the rest of the world who do things at a fraction of the cost we do and get better results.

Tax increases would be offset by the savings you get from your health insurance premiums. A 4% tax (which was proposed) is not going to be more than the $12,535 you'd be getting back until you make well over $300k a year.

But you don't believe in how market economies operate so I don't think we'd come to the same conclusion.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't know about retiree premiums. Still a couple decades before I need to think about that :-)

IIRC Premiums stay the same as a retiree (with the exception of a couple branches of government workers). To qualify for insurance as a retiree you have to keep an insurance plan (not necessarily the same one) for the 5 years prior to your retirement.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because the system sucks. Why is our health insurance tied into a company we work for? And because we can look at the rest of the world who do things at a fraction of the cost we do and get better results.

Again, apples to oranges. No country with a good health care system insures this many people. Here are some of the populations for the countries with "better" health care systems:
France (65 mil), Italy (60 mil), Netherlands (17 mil) and Norway (5.5 mil)

The US has over 330 million people with much more diversity and coverage hurdles than those smaller countries. Plus, many of those countries have issues with wait times and massive tax rates. There is no country with over 130 million people near us on the World ranking. The closest is Mexico (not exactly a health care beacon). China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil and Russia are abysmal. It's a stretch to think a system that works for the 37 million people in Canada will translate to the US and it's 330 million without massive issues.

Tax increases would be offset by the savings you get from your health insurance premiums. A 4% tax (which was proposed) is not going to be more than the $12,535 you'd be getting back until you make well over $300k a year.

But you don't believe in how market economies operate so I don't think we'd come to the same conclusion.

If you believe that companies will give the entire $12,000 benefit back to you in salary, I have some swamp land to sell you. That's just not how this works. I look at it like you have an autographed Mike Trout baseball card that shows $80 in value in the recent Beckett. Now, you can say that card is worth $80 - and be right in a sense. But, if you try to sell it on ebay, you may only get a top bid of $30. So, while the card is "worth" $80 - once you try to move it you will get much less in actual money. That's exactly like employer sponsored health care. When they cover it, you get the $12K - but the second they don't have to cover it, you are probably only getting 3-5K back in real money on your salary (which is also taxed).

Just think about it logically. If a factory worker makes 50K a year at my plant (they have access to the same health plan I do). Do you really think we would give him a 25% raise if health care was covered by the government? come on.

[ISiddiqui]

So there is this very, very strange knee jerk reaction on social media that Bloomberg is basically the same as Trump. It's one of the most baffling things I've seen. Bloomberg definitely has some sexism and racism in his closet, but its on order of magnitude less than Trump. Not to mention Bloomberg has been for gun control and taking on climate change for YEARS. In addition to a pathway to citizenship and increasing health coverage. Just because he's rich, he's basically Trump, wtf?!

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

The closest is Mexico (not exactly a health care beacon).

Mexico is exactly that, for OUR health care in particular.

Millions of Americans Flood Into Mexico for Health Care

https://psmag.com/economics/medical-...ming-in-mexico

https://fortune.com/2018/10/31/utah-...o-drug-prices/

Many Americans Going To Mexico For Health Care | KPBS

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

we can look at the rest of the world who do things at a fraction of the cost we do and get better results.

Other countries spend a lot less per capita, but none of the Dem candidates are proposing this, even the, "let's just be Finland, it's easy!" guy. It's apparently not feasible in the U.S.

Mayor Pete's plan is the only one that the CRFB projects would reduce the federal deficient - though it would also increase spending and we'd still be way ahead of other countries on per capita spending.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Mexico is exactly that, for OUR health care in particular.

Millions of Americans Flood Into Mexico for Health Care

https://psmag.com/economics/medical-...ming-in-mexico

https://fortune.com/2018/10/31/utah-...o-drug-prices/

Many Americans Going To Mexico For Health Care | KPBS

I'm assuming you are having a little fun with me. If so, well played.

Yeah, people go to Mexico for cheap drugs and inexpensive minor dental work. But it's not like people are going to Mexico for Cancer treatment. There are also a ton of botched procedures (esp in plastic surgery) and no malpractice insurance (one of the reasons it is so cheap). It's a bit like the wild west down there, but it's not a bad option for a crown or buying antibiotics in bulk (some will be duds, so it's better to go quantity over quality). Still, it's not like people are going there for heart surgery, ACL surgery or more complicated illnesses. Saying people are going there for "health care" is akin to saying people go to McDonalds for a "gourmet dinner".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Other countries spend a lot less per capita, but none of the Dem candidates are proposing this, even the, "let's just be Finland, it's easy!" guy. It's apparently not feasible in the U.S.

IIRC, Sanders is proposing this, but in his vague way.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So there is this very, very strange knee jerk reaction on social media that Bloomberg is basically the same as Trump. It's one of the most baffling things I've seen. Bloomberg definitely has some sexism and racism in his closet, but its on order of magnitude less than Trump. Not to mention Bloomberg has been for gun control and taking on climate change for YEARS. In addition to a pathway to citizenship and increasing health coverage. Just because he's rich, he's basically Trump, wtf?!

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ben Imran, you must not know any Bernie supporters in real life.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

My real life Bernie supporters aren't saying anything close to the same things, FWIW.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

IIRC, Sanders is proposing this, but in his vague way.

The CRFB projected Sanders' plan would add 13.4 trillion to the deficit. Nobody knows for sure I guess, but that's a pretty big difference (and more than double even what they project for Warren).

One of the many things I don't quite understand about Sanders is how is vision depends on the perpetual existence of billionaires to tax. Nobody creates taxable wealth like the super-rich, and that can be a great asset for the country. That'd be great for teachers and other public servants to make more money, but, they don't create more capital like can be done in business and finance. But he also thinks billionaires make and retain too much money. So what happens after the rich are knocked down a few pegs and/or killed and ritually eaten by Bernie Bros?