• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

myDeaconmyhand said:
That would make sense if she endorsed "Single Payer" or "Univeral Healthcare". M4A is a specific standalone universal system that eliminates the private market, it's not something you can compromise on.
Click to expand...

She endorsed M4A. Her people said she was open to other methods of universal health care. It's clear what she prefers.
 
No country has M4A, the only ones close are Canada, the U.K., and Vatican City
 
PhDeac said:
She endorsed M4A. Her people said she was open to other methods of universal health care. It's clear what she prefers.
Click to expand...
I still believe she is hedging by not taking policy ownership, but I'm willing to concede the point that she "prefers" M4A. I cant argue that she doesn't.
 
Just to throw in a small practical problem here, y'all do realize that the most likely result following the 2020 election is that Dems will have the presidency and house, and Pubs will still have a slim majority in the senate. And to effin' Pubs, 1 of the their biggest sticking points with the ACA was the mandate because it messed with people's freedom. And 1 of the biggest reasons the ACA isn't as affordable as it should have been was because more 20-somethings didn't sign up because the mandate had so few teeth. So while in theory I've always supported some type of single payer system, I don't think you're getting a single payer bill through the next congress or the congress after that. I think the most we can hope for is a patch for the ACA that at least a few senate Pubs could sign off on that does a better job of controlling costs.
 
M4A is like Brexit. you might be able to convince a slight majority that is would be good in the abstract, but when you get into the detail everybody is like woah, I didn't think it would crash and upheave the economy. Of course to the perpetrator extremists who pushed it, that upheaval is a perk.
 
ChrisL68 said:
M4A is like Brexit. you might be able to convince a slight majority that is would be good in the abstract, but when you get into the detail everybody is like woah, I didn't think it would crash and upheave the economy. Of course to the perpetrator extremists who pushed it, that upheaval is a perk.
Click to expand...

so, ph isn’t going to be able to convince you otherwise?
 
cville deac said:
Just to throw in a small practical problem here, y'all do realize that the most likely result following the 2020 election is that Dems will have the presidency and house, and Pubs will still have a slim majority in the senate. And to effin' Pubs, 1 of the their biggest sticking points with the ACA was the mandate because it messed with people's freedom. And 1 of the biggest reasons the ACA isn't as affordable as it should have been was because more 20-somethings didn't sign up because the mandate had so few teeth. So while in theory I've always supported some type of single payer system, I don't think you're getting a single payer bill through the next congress or the congress after that. I think the most we can hope for is a patch for the ACA that at least a few senate Pubs could sign off on that does a better job of controlling costs.
Click to expand...

Right. The correct way for Dems to proceed is to support M4A, hype up the benefits, while knowing there's no way in hell it's going to happen with the Pubs. Some M4A-lite Frankenstein's monster public/private hybrid could doom it long term.

Patch up ACA, work on getting more states to support Medicaid expansion. Use the bully pulpit to call out states who haven't done Medicaid expansion. Make sure Dems continue to be the party of health care and keep hammering Pubs on their obstructionism at the state level. Sow discontent with private insurance. One of the main reasons people like their private insurance are that they haven't had a major medical emergency. M4A advocates need to be out there hyping up stories of people who have gotten screwed by their providers.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Really dude. We all know what Bernie is, the point is that the Democratic party fully claims him as member, until its convenient not to.
Click to expand...

And he claimed to be a member when it was convenient for him. Bottom line is he’s not a Democrat.
 
ChrisL68 said:
M4A is like Brexit. you might be able to convince a slight majority that is would be good in the abstract, but when you get into the detail everybody is like woah, I didn't think it would crash and upheave the economy. Of course to the perpetrator extremists who pushed it, that upheaval is a perk.
Click to expand...

alternatively, we can continue to spend the most per capita on healthcare with middling outcomes just so the highest level of care can be the best known to man

as income and wealth inequality exacerbates, it will only get worse
 
PhDeac said:
Right. The correct way for Dems to proceed is to support M4A, hype up the benefits, while knowing there's no way in hell it's going to happen with the Pubs. Some M4A-lite Frankenstein's monster public/private hybrid could doom it long term.

Patch up ACA, work on getting more states to support Medicaid expansion. Use the bully pulpit to call out states who haven't done Medicaid expansion. Make sure Dems continue to be the party of health care and keep hammering Pubs on their obstructionism at the state level. Sow discontent with private insurance. One of the main reasons people like their private insurance are that they haven't had a major medical emergency. M4A advocates need to be out there hyping up stories of people who have gotten screwed by their providers.
Click to expand...

BTW, has the CBO or like organization done a cost analysis of M4A? I haven't seen anything on it and am just wondering. I mean right now we're paying something like 15% of GDP on health care, which I'm guessing is still more than double that of any other 1st world country.
 
A lot of our costs would go down by getting rid of the wasted costs for insurance companies.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
alternatively, we can continue to spend the most per capita on healthcare with middling outcomes just so the highest level of care can be the best known to man

as income and wealth inequality exacerbates, it will only get worse
Click to expand...
Well it's a good thing that m4a and the status quo aren't our only two options then.
 
RJKarl said:
A lot of our costs would go down by getting rid of the wasted costs for insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Right, at least in theory. But what you intend to happen when you enact legislation doesn't always happen. When the Dems enacted the ACA, they believed the mandate of millenials shelling out $2K/yr for insurance or paying a penalty of $4-500 if they didn't was going to get enough 20-somethings on board in order to keep costs down. And they didn't realize enacting the ACA would cause treatment centers to proliferate so they could charge insurance companies for treating the same people over and over and making a mint off of it. But in both instances, that was a pretty big swing and miss. So I'm asking if the CBO or anyone else has done a cost analysis of M4A yet.
 
cville deac said:
Right, at least in theory. But what you intend to happen when you enact legislation doesn't always happen. When the Dems enacted the ACA, they believed the mandate of millenials shelling out $2K/yr for insurance or paying a penalty of $4-500 if they didn't was going to get enough 20-somethings on board in order to keep costs down. And they didn't realize enacting the ACA would cause treatment centers to proliferate so they could charge insurance companies for treating the same people over and over and making a mint off of it. But in both instances, that was a pretty big swing and miss. So I'm asking if the CBO or anyone else has done a cost analysis of M4A yet.
Click to expand...

Mercatus

UMASS
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
No, I hope he doesn’t run.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but the matter at hand is that he is extremely popular and has a tremendous grassroots fundraising base, so the Democratic Party cant afford for him to be an independent on election day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top