What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democratic Debates (2 Viewers)

Sinn Fein said:
So, here is the dirty little secret about healthcare (and why I think Obamacare struggled):

There is a big bucket of healthcare related expenses in this country - add up all the costs to get that total.  Individuals are responsible for 100% of those costs - either directly, or indirectly.  We either pay via taxes, premiums/copays/deductibles, or our employer chips in with some of those costs.  But, its important to remember that our employer is paying for those costs via the profits they make on goods and services - i.e. they charge enough to cover those expenses, and without those expenses, products and services would cost less.  So, we even pay, indirectly, for any employer benefits we receive.

So, with Obamacare the primary idea was to get more people covered - so that more people would go get medical treatment when needed.  What that did was to create a bigger healthcare bucket - since people who had not gone to the doctor, were now going, and adding to the macro expenses.  The new premiums for those new people - who tended to be less healthy than the general public - did not cover all the new expenses - and so we all, collectively, still have to pay for the entire bucket - that meant everyone's premiums go up.

So, if we are all collectively responsible, then we have to allocate those expenses in some way - but, no matter how you do it, its not going to be "fair" - and part of that reasoning is that we all collectively benefit from a healthier populace.  That could be from a more productive work force (less sick days), it could be from reducing your own risk to illness being spread.

Arguably, the most successful among us, benefit the most from a healthy workforce.  Whether that is as a CEO, or even just a shareholder - we benefit economically from everyone being healthier.   

And, using your data of the top 1% accounting for 23% of expenditures - if they can't pay it (and most can't) - they go bankrupt, and the health system has to "eat" the expense - except the healthcare system does not eat the expense, it builds it into the pricing for everyone else...so most of us are already paying much more than we are taking out.  Nothing really changes there.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but you are glossing over the disparity in financial winners and losers.

Today, 2 people can have the same position at the same company, with the same coverage situation (e.g., employee + family). So they pay the same amount for coverage. But one of them can spend $10K per year for healthcare expenses other than premiums (e.g., copayments, deductibles, and non-covered expenses) while the other spends $0.

Now M4A is implemented. It eliminates their portion of healthcare premiums, say $5K per year. But it raises their taxes by $10K per year. One employee just gained $5K per year while the other lost $5K per year.

This is a made up example but illustrates the point. And this is true independent of all of us also paying for medical bankruptcies and other unpaid healthcare cost.

I suspect that the number of losers in this scenario would greatly exceed the number of winners. I assume that means the majority will not support the taxation that will be required to implement M4A. And I further suspect that is exactly why no candidate has put forth a plan to actually cover all of these costs.

 
Just Win Baby said:
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but you are glossing over the disparity in financial winners and losers.

Today, 2 people can have the same position at the same company, with the same coverage situation (e.g., employee + family). So they pay the same amount for coverage. But one of them can spend $10K per year for healthcare expenses other than premiums (e.g., copayments, deductibles, and non-covered expenses) while the other spends $0.

Now M4A is implemented. It eliminates their portion of healthcare premiums, say $5K per year. But it raises their taxes by $10K per year. One employee just gained $5K per year while the other lost $5K per year.

This is a made up example but illustrates the point. And this is true independent of all of us also paying for medical bankruptcies and other unpaid healthcare cost.

I suspect that the number of losers in this scenario would greatly exceed the number of winners. I assume that means the majority will not support the taxation that will be required to implement M4A. And I further suspect that is exactly why no candidate has put forth a plan to actually cover all of these costs.
Click to expand...
Sure - but there are winners and losers in the insurance game already.  

I rarely go to the doctor.  There was a time I probably went several years without stepping foot into so much as a Urgent Care.  Now, I do try to get an annual physical.  So, the amount I paid into healthcare - just in premiums - was a lot more than I was getting out in terms of actual care.

Certainly there is peace of mind with having coverage if it were needed.  But, I am - relatively speaking - young and healthy, and yet I am effectively subsidizing people who are old, fat, and unhealthy.

So, I am not bothered if the order is switched a little - its kind of arbitrary now.

I put this in another post - but my perfect healthcare plan would be a government funded basic level of coverage for everyone - this would cover all wellness visits, yearly physicals, flu shots, vaccines, age-appropriate diagnostic screening (and maybe child sick visits would be covered on this policy).  On top of that, you could then have a single-payer and/or private insurer to cover the costs of sick visits, broken bones, emergencies, etc.

I would also provide financial incentives to meet various health metrics like BMI, BP, Cholesterol, etc.

I think the real key to addressing health care costs is to live healthier, but also get early diagnosis - which allow for more cost-effective treatments.  Thus, my plan builds around improving the odd of both of those happening.

 
Sinn Fein said:
She is - and I think she needs to explain how she will pay for it.  I think that is fair game.

I do think that she, and Bernie, get asked loaded questions, like:  "Will taxes on the middle class go up?"

The honest answer is: "Yes, under their proposals middle class taxes will go up."

But, that misses the point entirely of what they are trying to accomplish.  They want to replace insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays with taxes.  So, the "gotcha" moment of higher taxes ignores the broader concept of potentially lower overall spending by the taxpayer.

Having said that - Warren and Sanders need to come out with a more detailed approach, imo, to show that overall costs would go down.  That is the assumption, but I don't think I have seen the analysis on that (it could be out there, but they need to make that crystal clear)
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen the arithmetic.  I suspect that the “potential” for lower overall costs isn’t as clear.  Otherwise they’d be answering the question.  Until they can actually make a cogent argument, including some concept of how higher taxes will effectively lower costs for everyone, it will be a trap that they fall into.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Sure - but there are winners and losers in the insurance game already.  

I rarely go to the doctor.  There was a time I probably went several years without stepping foot into so much as a Urgent Care.  Now, I do try to get an annual physical.  So, the amount I paid into healthcare - just in premiums - was a lot more than I was getting out in terms of actual care.

Certainly there is peace of mind with having coverage if it were needed.  But, I am - relatively speaking - young and healthy, and yet I am effectively subsidizing people who are old, fat, and unhealthy.

So, I am not bothered if the order is switched a little - its kind of arbitrary now.

I put this in another post - but my perfect healthcare plan would be a government funded basic level of coverage for everyone - this would cover all wellness visits, yearly physicals, flu shots, vaccines, age-appropriate diagnostic screening (and maybe child sick visits would be covered on this policy).  On top of that, you could then have a single-payer and/or private insurer to cover the costs of sick visits, broken bones, emergencies, etc.

I would also provide financial incentives to meet various health metrics like BMI, BP, Cholesterol, etc.

I think the real key to addressing health care costs is to live healthier, but also get early diagnosis - which allow for more cost-effective treatments.  Thus, my plan builds around improving the odd of both of those happening.
Click to expand...
The point is not whether or not YOU are bothered by the idea of paying more taxes to subsidize other people's healthcare. The point is what the average voter thinks. IMO the average voter doesn't want to pay more taxes unless a candidate can clearly demonstrate that it will save him/her money overall, and I don't expect any candidate to be able to prove that.

Also, if you are suggesting that more preventive care/early diagnoses will reduce healthcare costs, that is not true. The gist of why it isn't true is because while it might result in saving money on a healthcare condition earlier in life, it will extend life to the point of dealing with a later condition that is just as costly as the first would have been... but at the expense of having expended cost on the first condition. This is reasonably well established.

 
Just Win Baby said:
Also, if you are suggesting that more preventive care/early diagnoses will reduce healthcare costs, that is not true. The gist of why it isn't true is because while it might result in saving money on a healthcare condition earlier in life, it will extend life to the point of dealing with a later condition that is just as costly as the first would have been... but at the expense of having expended cost on the first condition. This is reasonably well established.
Click to expand...
I'll take a link on that.  Be happy to read up on it.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I'll take a link on that.  Be happy to read up on it.
Click to expand...
Here are a few from a quick Google search:

NEJM: Does Preventive Care Save Money? Health Economics and the Presidential Candidates

Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.
Click to expand...
Does preventive care save money?

There are many good arguments for increasing our focus on prevention. Almost all have to do with improving quality, though, not reducing spending. We would do well to admit that and move forward. Sometimes good things cost money.
Click to expand...
Does preventive care save money? Nope—but it's still a bargain, Aaron Carroll argues

...preventive services don't save the country money as a whole either, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. The report estimated that reducing smoking through cigarette tax increases would likely decrease the number of smokers, which would decrease spending in the short term. But in the long term, these new non-smokers would live longer, which would lead to increased spending in other government programs, including health care, Carroll writes.
Click to expand...
CBO: Prevention and Wellness

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever said:
For the Nov debate, there is a goal to balance speaking time. Not sure how they'll get it done when anyone mentioned gets to respond. They say that is at moderators' discretion, but you know the candidates will be screaming they get to respond.

 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/november-democratic-debate-feature-balanced-number-questions-candidates-n1077751

Count is currently at ten candidates for Nov, six for  December
Click to expand...
The format seems to really favor the top-4 - since they will be doing their best to create contrast with each other - and the fringe candidates will also be looking to knock the top-4 (giving the top-4 a response period).

It might be an interesting strategy for Warren, Buttigieg, Sanders or Biden NOT to refer to the other contenders - and thus limit their speaking time.

 
Today is the last day for qualifying polls to make next week's debate. So, there should be ten candidates.
That's everyone from the last minus the Texas boys.

 
Looking ahead to December, when the Debate should really be trimmed down to a manageable number.

Oh, whats that you say?  8 or 9 will probably qualify?  (Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris and Klobuchar already in,  Gabbard and Steyer need 1 poll and donors, Yang needs 2 polls) . Booker will be the only "mainstream" candidate knocked out.  Patrick and Bloomberg seem extremely unlikely to make the stage - but will probably stay in the race.

At this rate, maybe we'll get down to 4-5 by June.

 
Well, Bloomberg has to enter in order to stay in ;)  Polls seems to still be adding him, though.

BTW, the November moderating panel will be all female. DNC committed to having a female and a nonwhite moderator at every debate "ensuring that the conversations reflect the concerns of all Americans."   So, this  policy now looks a little like  pandering since about half the country will not  be represented. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Looking ahead to December, when the Debate should really be trimmed down to a manageable number.

Oh, whats that you say?  8 or 9 will probably qualify?  (Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris and Klobuchar already in,  Gabbard and Steyer need 1 poll and donors, Yang needs 2 polls) . Booker will be the only "mainstream" candidate knocked out.  Patrick and Bloomberg seem extremely unlikely to make the stage - but will probably stay in the race.

At this rate, maybe we'll get down to 4-5 by June.
Click to expand...
Just to follow-up - Yang and Steyer each picked up a poll result today - South Carolina.  Yang needs one more poll, Steyer needs to reach donor threshold.

 
Podium Order (L-R)

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Former Vice President Joe Biden

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Sen. Kamala Harris of California

Businessman Andrew Yang

Businessman Tom Steyer

 
Mystery Achiever said:
Podium Order (L-R)

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Former Vice President Joe Biden

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Sen. Kamala Harris of California

Businessman Andrew Yang

Businessman Tom Steyer
Click to expand...
Not a great spot for Pete.

Would have preferred him next to Biden to accent the age difference.  And, now Pete is between, arguably, his two biggest competitors at the moment.

 
This seems to use Biden 1st, Warren 2nd. He needs the reverse to end up next to Biden or to bump Sanders from 3rd

 
Last edited by a moderator:
identikit said:
Klobuchar and Warren?
Click to expand...
Yeah - he has been attacking Warren on Healthcare, while Klobuchar has been attacking Pete on lack of experience.

Warren has been pushing back on Pete, and will be more incentivized given the recent polling in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Klobuchar needs to make her mark, and I think Pete will be an easier target for her - since I expect several will be going after Pete.

For some reason, Pete never really went after Biden like he did Warren, and has never had much interaction with Sanders.

My expectation will be that Warren, Klobuchar, and Harris specifically will go hard after Pete, while Sanders, Booker and Gabbard will be tough, but fair, and Biden might give a disapproving tsk tsk.

 
As I sit here today, I can't shake the feeling that one of the (other) Senators will be a factor by the time Iowa rolls around:

I'd rank them:

  1. Klobuchar
  2. Harris
  3. Booker
 
I have no confidence she actually develops into a threat, but if she does then I think Klobuchar wins the nomination and the general is a slaughter. 

 
Prop bets for this round are pretty boring, but here they are (I'd take under on impeach and Freedom DIvidend)

Will any candidate endorse another candidate for Pres.?
No -1000
Yes +500

How many times will A.Yang say Freedom Dividend?
Over 1½ Freedom Dividend -120
Under 1½ Freedom Dividend -120

How many times will the candidates say impeach?
Over 30 Impeach -120
Under 30 Impeach -120

How many times will the candidates say trillion?
Over 2½ -120
Under 2½ -120

Will any candidate say a curse word?
Yes -200
No +150

Will any candidate say MSNBC?
No -120
Yes -120

Will the debate be interrupted by a protester?
Yes -300
No +200

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever said:
Prop bets for this round are pretty boring, but here they are (I'd take under on impeach and Freedom DIvidend)

Will any candidate endorse another candidate for Pres.?
No -1000
Yes +500

How many times will A.Yang say Freedom Dividend?
Over 1½ Freedom Dividend -120
Under 1½ Freedom Dividend -120

How many times will the candidates say impeach?
Over 30 Impeach -120
Under 30 Impeach -120

How many times will the candidates say trillion?
Over 2½ Trillion -120
Under 2½ Trillion -120

Will any candidate say a curse word?
Yes -200
No +150

Will any candidate say MSNBC?
No -120
Yes -120

Will the debate be interrupted by a protester?
Yes -300
No +200
Click to expand...
Answers in bold.

 
I previously read past the trillion one. I think you've got the winner there  :lol:  

eta- Found another source that confirmed a typo (was hoping for satire);  should be over/under 2.5.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Mayor Pete can stay away from talking about Trump and continue to do things like attack Warren's "Medicare for All" he'll continue to have my interest.

 
I agree with Nate here - I think this is a pivotal moment for several campaigns:  

Nate Silver@NateSilver538

Debates are generally more high stakes when they come at a dynamic point in the race, and this is a fairly dynamic point. Lots of candidates are seemingly on the move in the polls. Seems like a several different equilibria could emerge. So, yeah, tonight is pretty important.

I think this could make things messy - the candidate to keep their head, might emerge as the winner of the night.

I have seen attacks from both Harris and Sanders on Pete regarding race in the last 24 hours.  I am sure Pete will be prepared - but you don't get a second chance to make these kind of responses, so I hope he nails the responses in a dignified manner.

Biden's post-debate email was inadvertently sent already - and it looks like his primary target will be Warren - differentiating between "action" and "plans"

Klobuchar and Harris are not yet to the hail mary stage - since they both already qualified for December - but I do expect both to be bold and aggressive tonight looking to gain some positive traction.

 
Oof.

Politico@Politco

Joe Biden’s staff got a little trigger happy today.

His campaign team prematurely sent out a fundraising email asking for feedback on tonight's debate that has yet to happen, asking in the subject line: “Did I make you proud?”

 
Interesting timing for this debate. The hearings are going to dominate news coverage this week. Something crazy would have to go down tonight to generate a headline that sticks.

 
Gr00vus said:
Interesting timing for this debate. The hearings are going to dominate news coverage this week. Something crazy would have to go down tonight to generate a headline that sticks.
Click to expand...
Thats a good point.

I wonder how many will actually watch - if they already have several hours of political content already today.  Timing seems geared towards West Coast viewers.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Thats a good point.

I wonder how many will actually watch - if they already have several hours of political content already today.  Timing seems geared towards West Coast viewers.
Click to expand...
I also wonder if they'll work additional questions about the proceedings into tonight's debate. Seems it'll have to come up at some point.

 
Gr00vus said:
Not a big fan of the first two.
Click to expand...
Its in Atlanta, a lot of talk of HBCUs leading up to the debates, and its being housed in Tyler Perry's studio - I think the largest minority-owned film studio.  Plus Pete is vulnerable on race, so I think there will be an emphasis on that tonight.

Gender - debate is being moderated by an all-female moderating crew - first time for that?  So I think that will be a factor in the questions.

 
Hopefully they spend some time on climate change. I know it's come up briefly in passing previously, but I'd like to see it get more focus.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Team Blue Strategist: Gavin Newsom Should Be Biden's Replacement For POTUS 2024 (12/14/21 17:44 PST)
Replies
27
Views
818
LawFitz
LawFitz
GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
237
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top