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.

***2020 Democrat Primary/Caucus Thread*** Biden Is Your Demoractic Nominee (4 Viewers)

A bridge period seems like a much safer strategy, IMO, and I don't see why the bridge period shouldn't be indefinite.

Should we ban private high schools as well? (I honestly have no clue whether there's a movement to do so.) Banning a private option seems like a bad way to promote (a) useful innovation, and (b) sweet, sweet freedom.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
A bridge period seems like a much safer strategy, IMO, and I don't see why the bridge period shouldn't be indefinite.

Should we ban private high schools as well? (I honestly have no clue whether there's a movement to do so.) Banning a private option seems like a bad way to promote (a) useful innovation, and (b) sweet, sweet freedom.
Click to expand...
Honestly, when the public option has enough "subscribers" behind it, it's probably going to be so much cheaper and better than the private options it'll end up as the de facto.  And at that point single payer will make complete sense - fund it with taxes instead of monthly premiums.  But that's a long way to go.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
A bridge period seems like a much safer strategy, IMO, and I don't see why the bridge period shouldn't be indefinite.

Should we ban private high schools as well? (I honestly have no clue whether there's a movement to do so.) Banning a private option seems like a bad way to promote (a) useful innovation, and (b) sweet, sweet freedom.
Click to expand...
Insurance pools are different from high schools.  I'm not an expert but I think Medicare For All advocates are against private insurance for the same reason that Obamacare had the mandate.  If the healthiest and youngest people all choose not to be part of the government plan, then the per-person expense of that plan will be exceptionally high.  That's problematic both because it would not be affordable for lots of people, and just as a general marketing problem.  There is no question in my mind that the private insurance industry would make sure everyone was told "LOOK HOW EXPENSIVE THE GOVERNMENT PLANS ARE."   

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
"Medicare for All" is intentionally vague. Some versions do away with private insurance, some don't.

Buttigieg, for example, wants people to have a choice between public and private options.

Warren's and Sanders's versions, I believe, would not include a private option (though I don't have all the different permutations memorized).
Click to expand...
Buttigieg and Warren have a public option, Sanders has a private option.  

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Insurance pools are different from high schools.  I'm not an expert but I think Medicare For All advocates are against private insurance for the same reason that Obamacare had the mandate.  If the healthiest and youngest people all choose not to be part of the government plan, then the per-person expense of that plan will be exceptionally high.  That's problematic both because it would not be affordable for lots of people, and just as a general marketing problem.  There is no question in my mind that the private insurance industry would make sure everyone was told "LOOK HOW EXPENSIVE THE GOVERNMENT PLANS ARE."   
Click to expand...
I might be misunderstanding the public option. As with high schools, I figured that it would be funded out of general tax revenues. So people will pay for the public option whether they use the public option or get private insurance. Is that wrong?

If that's how it will work, I don't think the thing about pools matters.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Pete’s plan is not M4A. It’s the public option atrociously branded as Medicare For Everyone who wants it. M4A bans private primary health insurance. I imagine MedSupp plans would still exist. 
Click to expand...
This is false.  M4A allows for private plans.

ETA---missed the word primary there, you are correct, it bans private primary insurance.  It does however allow private secondary insurance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I might be misunderstanding the public option. As with high schools, I figured that it would be funded out of general tax revenues. So people will pay for the public option whether they use the public option or get private insurance. Is that wrong?

If that's how it will work, I don't think the thing about pools matters.
Click to expand...
I'm almost certain the public option is not free under Buttigieg's plan or any other plan that isn't Medicare For All.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I might be misunderstanding the public option. As with high schools, I figured that it would be funded out of general tax revenues. So people will pay for the public option whether they use the public option or get private insurance. Is that wrong?

If that's how it will work, I don't think the thing about pools matters.
Click to expand...
The public option is just another health plan. You would pay for it just like paying for CIGNA. In fact, under Pete’s plan, if you didn’t purchase either a public or private plan during the year, you are retroactively tasked the cost of the public plan, which would be many multitudes of the ObamaCare penalty/tax, although I’m sure there are means tested subsidies. 

 
Mystery Achiever said:
I don't think that is true. My understanding is that private insurance would exist only for extra stuff like dental and vision.Not traditional health insurance.
Do you have more info on this?
Click to expand...
I just know how it works in other countries.  You can get extra coverage privately.  Private room at the hospital, paying more for an MRI to get it sooner, stuff like that.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
, I figured that it would be funded out of general tax revenues. So people will pay for the public option whether they use the public option or get private insurance. Is that wrong?
Click to expand...
I think that is wrong. There may be some gov't funding of the program, but you would pay premiums as a user of the option. Just like you pay medicare premiums to use it.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm almost certain the public option is not free under Buttigieg's plan or any other plan that isn't Medicare For All.
Click to expand...


Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
The public option is just another health plan. You would pay for it just like paying for CIGNA. In fact, under Pete’s plan, if you didn’t purchase either a public or private plan during the year, you are retroactively tasked the cost of the public plan, which would be many multitudes of the ObamaCare penalty/tax, although I’m sure there are means tested subsidies. 
Click to expand...
That makes things more complicated...

 
Navin Johnson said:
I just know how it works in other countries.  You can get extra coverage privately.  Private room at the hospital, paying more for an MRI to get it sooner, stuff like that.  
Click to expand...
Warren and Sanders both want to eliminate private insurance.Sanders rigt away. Warren with three year transition.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That makes things more complicated...
Click to expand...
Suffice it to say there are lots of things to read if you Google “why the public option won’t work.” 
 

Some more germane than others. As a practical matter, Warren or Bernie would likely need to settle for the public option. I understand that. But I think the public option retains some problems that M4A fixes, (particularly in reducing administration costs) and I’d rather at least fight for the better option. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm almost certain the public option is not free under Buttigieg's plan or any other plan that isn't Medicare For All.
Click to expand...
In fact, I think Pete's plan is the only one that advocates for re-instituting a fee/fine for those who are uncovered (which was part of the original ACA but was overturned recently under Trump's challenges of it). It would scale based on income, but the idea is if you didn't explicitly enroll, you would be enrolled in the public option retroactively for the year and would owe that fine/fee amount via taxes. I believe there was some calculation done that it could cost up to $7000 a year for those individuals.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
What’s up with Bernie’s medical records?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/13/sanders-trump-media-114791

Voters in 2016 should not have voted for a candidate who refused to release his medical records, his tax returns, or his plan to divest his business assets.

Voters in 2020 have less of an excuse.
Click to expand...
Total deal breaker for me in the primaries if Bernie won't release medical records.  I'd still vote for him in the general, but would very much prefer he released them.  A major candidate for President coming off a heart attack is a serious issue that voters should want to know about

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I mean, the theory is pretty well-founded. Even conservative studies conclude that total healthcare spending will go down while public healthcare spending will rise. 
Click to expand...
I only added that because I don't have the math in front of me and don't have the desire to argue about it.  I agree.  We will save money just by stopping the current price gouging that is going on by the pharmaceuticals.

 
Navin Johnson said:
I only added that because I don't have the math in front of me and don't have the desire to argue about it.  I agree.  We will save money just by stopping the current price gouging that is going on by the pharmaceuticals.
Click to expand...
How is that going to be accomplished?

 
Dickies said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
What’s up with Bernie’s medical records?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/13/sanders-trump-media-114791

Voters in 2016 should not have voted for a candidate who refused to release his medical records, his tax returns, or his plan to divest his business assets.

Voters in 2020 have less of an excuse.
Click to expand...
Total deal breaker for me in the primaries if Bernie won't release medical records.  I'd still vote for him in the general, but would very much prefer he released them.  A major candidate for President coming off a heart attack is a serious issue that voters should want to know about
Click to expand...
I agree it'd be nice to have the transparency, but personally I don't really care about the medical records. He's old. There's a decent chance he dies in office (same with Trump). I'm willing to accept that, but I can see why others wouldn't. It's a big reason I been very curious about who his VP might be, as it think it will be very important. Admittedly, my views on this are pretty heavily shaped by my adoration for FDR. If public medical records were a requirement back then, he'd have never had a chance.

 
The major difference between the “extreme” and “moderate” candidates is that the moderates want to continue the model of means testing and subsidizing services based on how poor you are. And the extreme candidates have a position that even some libertarians might appreciate. Which is that always cause inefficiencies and coverage gaps as you try to adjudicate who is poor enough. 

So the progressive wing favors, in most instances, universal entitlements. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
What’s up with Bernie’s medical records?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/13/sanders-trump-media-114791

Voters in 2016 should not have voted for a candidate who refused to release his medical records, his tax returns, or his plan to divest his business assets.

Voters in 2020 have less of an excuse.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm curious for more information on this. The quoted article is very pointed about this exchange between Sanders and Todd, but doesn't actually quote any of the words exchanged. After looking up the actual back and forth, Bernie says he's released "all substantive records", the same as every other candidate. That lead me to look a bit more into what others have actually released, and I have to say that he isn't wrong about having released basically the same amount of information as any of the others (aside from Warren). From what I've seen, Warren released a signed letter from her doctor along with some actual medical records involving medications etc. (by far the best transparency). Biden released only a signed letter from his physician. Bloomberg released only a signed letter from his physician. Bernie released a signed letter from his physician, along with two more letters from cardiologists attesting to his health and ability to continue running and living his life.

I don't know what the actual expectations are here, but this feels like a bit of a media blowup. Admittedly I've not looked deeply at this kind of info in past elections, so I don't know if these releases are substantively different than prior cycles.

Edit: After looking at the Sanders letters in more detail, they do also list prior medical procedures and current medications, but only do so via the letter. Warren's documents appear to be some kind of printout from a medical software system. 

Here's a WaPo article detailing the various releases from Warren, Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Suffice it to say there are lots of things to read if you Google “why the public option won’t work.” 

Some more germane than others. As a practical matter, Warren or Bernie would likely need to settle for the public option. I understand that. But I think the public option retains some problems that M4A fixes, (particularly in reducing administration costs) and I’d rather at least fight for the better option. 
Click to expand...
Do we have a healthcare policy thread?

I don't think a public option would make things worse than the status quo unless it's implemented very stupidly.

But it would have to retain pretty much all of the features of Obamacare when it comes to regulating private insurance. There'd still need to be a mandate; there'd still need to be prohibitions against discriminating against preexisting conditions; there'd still need to be regulated minimum coverage, etc.

The upside is that maybe the public option could reduce certain types of overhead and compete successfully on cost. If so, we get improvement over the status quo. If not, we just get the status quo. But it's hard to envision how adding a public option would make things worse than they are now. Which makes it a sensible incremental step, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
But it's hard to envision how adding a public option would make things worse than they are now. Which makes it a sensible incremental step, IMO.
Click to expand...
If you're speaking only of "worse for health outcomes" I agree.  But there's significant political danger to it, which is what makes me very wary.  It's not an incremental step if it's a big failure and then people don't want to take the next step.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Do we have a healthcare policy thread?

I don't think a public option would make things worse than the status quo unless it's implemented very stupidly.

But it would have to retain pretty much all of the features of Obamacare when it comes to regulating private insurance. There'd still need to be a mandate; there'd still need to be prohibitions against discriminating against preexisting conditions; there'd still need to be regulated minimum coverage, etc.

The upside is that maybe the public option could reduce certain types of overhead and compete successfully on cost. If so, we get improvement over the status quo. If not, we just get the status quo. But it's hard to envision how adding a public option would make things worse than they are now. Which makes it a sensible incremental step, IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this. A robust public option would be a step in the right direction. But I also don’t believe in negotiating against myself.   
 

 
For those of you whose heads are spinning a bit from all this talk about health care policy, Tulsi and her husband are here to cheer you up, mellow you out and shine some light on your day --> rainbows

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Navin Johnson said:
M4A does not remove private health care.
Click to expand...
"Medicare for All" is intentionally vague. Some versions do away with private insurance, some don't.

Buttigieg, for example, wants people to have a choice between public and private options.

Warren's and Sanders's versions, I believe, would not include a private option (though I don't have all the different permutations memorized).
Click to expand...
But I don't think any make providers salaried employees of the government in government run hospitals and doctor offices.  There may be "single payer" as in the government which would have undeniably an even greater deal of influence on the practice of medicine, but beyond insurance at least at first most aspects would remain private.  

ETA:  Thought I was at the end of the thread.  Realize now I was several hours and a page behind.   Glad no one else made this point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Political Polls

@PpollingNumbers

#NEW #Georgia

@wsbtv

/ Landmark Communications Poll: Biden 32% Sanders 14% Bloomberg 14% Buttigieg 5% Warren 4% Klobuchar 3% Steyer 2% Gabbard 1%

 
Really hope the Bernie campaign learned from their mistakes in 2015 in Nevada. They had some issues with the credentials with their delegates IIRC.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Do we have a healthcare policy thread?

I don't think a public option would make things worse than the status quo unless it's implemented very stupidly.

But it would have to retain pretty much all of the features of Obamacare when it comes to regulating private insurance. There'd still need to be a mandate; there'd still need to be prohibitions against discriminating against preexisting conditions; there'd still need to be regulated minimum coverage, etc.

The upside is that maybe the public option could reduce certain types of overhead and compete successfully on cost. If so, we get improvement over the status quo. If not, we just get the status quo. But it's hard to envision how adding a public option would make things worse than they are now. Which makes it a sensible incremental step, IMO.
Click to expand...
except you still have government running it;  which their efficiency rate is 50% less(at least) in anything lower than any private company.  If you want a public option bid it out.  These yahoos in Washington are great at passing a bill, patting themselves on the backs, & putting some dimwads that donated to their campaigns in charge.   That will not work.  IMO

Post office=sell it.

you know why they don't? too many ingrained government employees.  They can't get fired unless you go through the courts or they go postal.  sad state of affairs.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
For those of you whose heads are spinning a bit from all this talk about health care policy, Tulsi and her husband are here to cheer you up, mellow you out and shine some light on your day --> rainbows
Click to expand...
Not sure I can picture her husband being the first husband. Kind of a mahalo attitude though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever said:
I don't think that is true. My understanding is that private insurance would exist only for extra stuff like dental and vision.Not traditional health insurance.
Do you have more info on this?
Click to expand...
Current Medicare recipients have the option of using private insurance companies’ Medicare Advantage plans instead. I would imagine they would remain and are immensely popular as well as big money makers for the insurance industry. 

 
Bloomberg really seems to know what he's doing...

Mike Bloomberg @MikeBloomberg

@realDonaldTrump - we know many of the same people in NY. Behind your back they laugh at you & call you a carnival barking clown. They know you inherited a fortune & squandered it with stupid deals and incompetence. I have the record & the resources to defeat you. And I will.
Click to expand...
First of all "carnival barking clown" might stick.  It's accurate and kind of catchy.

But more than the sophomoric bit, he's hitting Trump where it hurts.  Trump wants more than anything to be accepted and deep down knows what Bloomberg is saying is true -- the people he really cares about are still laughing at him.

Trump will respond and Bloomberg will look even stronger and better to Dems who want Trump out more than anything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Mike Bloomberg @MikeBloomberg

@realDonaldTrump - we know many of the same people in NY. Behind your back they laugh at you & call you a carnival barking clown. They know you inherited a fortune & squandered it with stupid deals and incompetence. I have the record & the resources to defeat you. And I will.
Click to expand...
Repeating that message a thousand times in slightly different variations is Trump's modus operandi, and it really does work. If that becomes a mantra, it will succeed on a subconscious level at severely reducing enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters. It's what he did to his 2016 opponents (primary and general). It's an unfortunate quirk of human nature that such a devious and frankly obnoxious tactic should prove effective, but that's the human nature we're stuck with.

The point isn't that Trump is a carnival barking clown. The point is that everyone knows it and snickers behind his back. That makes him low-status, which, to an extent much greater than we're consciously aware, is what elections are about.

 
Looking deeper at that Morning Consult national poll that showed Bernie 1st at 29% and Biden 2nd at 19% there's also some notable shifts in the "who can win" numbers:

Since a Feb. 4-5 Morning Consult poll conducted after his poor Iowa performance, the share of Democratic primary voters who said Biden has the best chance of beating President Donald Trump this November fell 12 points to 17 percent in a Wednesday poll. He trails Sanders and Bloomberg, who gained 6  and 7 points respectively, on the question for the first time in Morning Consult polling. The margin of error for responses from Democratic primary voters in each of those polls is 3 points.
Click to expand...
In the "who has the best chance of beating President Trump" question, Bernie takes the lead jumping from 23% to 29%, Biden craters from 29% to 17%, and Bloomberg rises from 18% to 25%.

For that same question among black voters, Bernie leads with 32% (up 9 points) saying he has the best chance of beating Trump, Biden dropped 10 points to 21%, and Bloomberg rose to 21%, up 7 points.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Repeating that message a thousand times in slightly different variations is Trump's modus operandi, and it really does work. If that becomes a mantra, it will succeed on a subconscious level at severely reducing enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters. It's what he did to his 2016 opponents (primary and general). It's an unfortunate quirk of human nature that such a devious and frankly obnoxious tactic should prove effective, but that's the human nature we're stuck with.

The point isn't that Trump is a carnival barking clown. The point is that everyone knows it and snickers behind his back. That makes him low-status, which, to an extent much greater than we're consciously aware, is what elections are about.
Click to expand...
Really well articulated, MT.

And please don't suspend me, but Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo nailed this in 2004 -- calling it the ##### Slap Theory of Electoral Politics.  And have subsequent events ever proved him right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Repeating that message a thousand times in slightly different variations is Trump's modus operandi, and it really does work. If that becomes a mantra, it will succeed on a subconscious level at severely reducing enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters. It's what he did to his 2016 opponents (primary and general). It's an unfortunate quirk of human nature that such a devious and frankly obnoxious tactic should prove effective, but that's the human nature we're stuck with.

The point isn't that Trump is a carnival barking clown. The point is that everyone knows it and snickers behind his back. That makes him low-status, which, to an extent much greater than we're consciously aware, is what elections are about.
Click to expand...
I do think Bloomberg needs to drop the “people in NY” part of it though, because being laughed at by rich New Yorkers is seen as more of an endearing quality in certain parts of the country.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Repeating that message a thousand times in slightly different variations is Trump's modus operandi, and it really does work. If that becomes a mantra, it will succeed on a subconscious level at severely reducing enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters. It's what he did to his 2016 opponents (primary and general). It's an unfortunate quirk of human nature that such a devious and frankly obnoxious tactic should prove effective, but that's the human nature we're stuck with.

The point isn't that Trump is a carnival barking clown. The point is that everyone knows it and snickers behind his back. That makes him low-status, which, to an extent much greater than we're consciously aware, is what elections are about.
Click to expand...
Sure but can we refer to Trump as a "Carnival Barking Dog" here in the PSF? Probably not.   :kicksrock:

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Repeating that message a thousand times in slightly different variations is Trump's modus operandi, and it really does work. If that becomes a mantra, it will succeed on a subconscious level at severely reducing enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters. It's what he did to his 2016 opponents (primary and general). It's an unfortunate quirk of human nature that such a devious and frankly obnoxious tactic should prove effective, but that's the human nature we're stuck with.

The point isn't that Trump is a carnival barking clown. The point is that everyone knows it and snickers behind his back. That makes him low-status, which, to an extent much greater than we're consciously aware, is what elections are about.
Click to expand...
Meh

Talk to me when people are staying in a hotel with your name on it....djt 

Meanwhile Bernie is discussing policy for the bulk of us

 
Navin Johnson said:
I just know how it works in other countries.  You can get extra coverage privately.  Private room at the hospital, paying more for an MRI to get it sooner, stuff like that.  
Click to expand...
This just seems like it would be a slippery slope that results in only people with the private supplement being able to get proper care. It might work well in other countries but here the insurance companies will find a way to exploit it.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Oregon’s Gubernatorial Battleground: Phil Knight's Big Nike Money Vs Extremist Identity Politics (10/23/22 12:29 PST)
Replies
4
Views
395
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
774
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
(Baby Formula Shortage): Biden ADMITS He Knew Of Crisis In Early April (4/27/22 23:53 PST)
8 9 10
Replies
494
Views
12K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top