Biden Harris 2020 (formerly: Who Will Be...) - Page 11 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

You still have to explain the "gay basher" comment.

Do you equate being against gay marriage with gay bashing?

Evidence that it was Biden who swayed Obama on gay marriage?

Quote

09-03-2019 , 12:48 AM

#252

WaitingForMPJ

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 2,452

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Pretty much. It's not like it's all that more politically expedient (at least as long as there are competent salespeople trying to sell folks on it), because it's not like Republicans or insurance companies are going to accept that it's a good idea. Divorcing health coverage from employment is a massive win for almost everyone, and the economies of scale and lack of a profit motive that government brings to the table are unmatched by any private system. Yes, some Democratic voters may prefer that line of thinking, mainly because they are underinformed and scared of change (not entirely unreasonable things to be, but it's the reason for my first parenthetical), but there's a reason why our country's most popular and most cost efficient health insurance provider is Medicare. I don't expect that to change when more people have it.

No one who's doing health care better than us has a hybrid public/private model, so there's little reason to believe that the proposal is an misguided attempt to find a compromise where none actually exists (much like Obamacare was).

My god you’re dumb.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 08:34 AM

#253

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,462

Quote:

Originally Posted by becky88

your things of what he got wrong are your opinion. he is the president. that is what you need to understand. he gets to pick the judges. you think they are bad but like obama said,"i won so i get to do the picking". it really irks me when a person who is just another joe tries to say he knows more than the president. if you thought you knew better just go and get yourself elected in the most one-sided race against yourself as trump did and then you can be the one doing the picking. please otherwise express your opinions as opinions and not facts,thank you.

The republicans LITERALLY prevented Obama from picking a judge.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 03:11 PM

#254

becky88

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 289

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Beat

You still have to explain the "gay basher" comment.

Do you equate being against gay marriage with gay bashing?

Evidence that it was Biden who swayed Obama on gay marriage?

please allow me to retort. 1 if you are against something you are not for it. that is simple. 2 i am not a lib but many folks convinced obama to change his stance on gay folks and joe was at the top of that list. you dont have to believe me cuz that is your right but i believe what my eyes saw and what my ears heard so that is good enuff for me. 3the gay basher is pence. got it ? he does not like gay folks. obama did not like gay folks till he was swayed. putting 2+2 together obama is therefore a gay basher.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 03:18 PM

#255

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaitingForMPJ

My god you’re dumb.

Should be pretty easy to prove me wrong, then.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 06:18 PM

#256

Inso0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,825

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

but there's a reason why our country's most popular and most cost efficient health insurance provider is Medicare. I don't expect that to change when more people have it.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Also, the most effective weight loss technique is to simply stop eating food. Long-term sustainability be damned.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 06:56 PM

#257

micro dong

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 588

So it turns out only Yang can beat Trump and some think he's 90% to win a HU.

Why aren't you lot out there shilling correctly to make me some money?

Get out there and shill. Shill!!!

Quote

09-03-2019 , 07:04 PM

#258

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inso0

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Also, the most effective weight loss technique is to simply stop eating food. Long-term sustainability be damned.

Medicare for all costs less in the long term than private insurance. National health programs in numerous countries are doing just fine.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 09:07 PM

#259

Inso0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,825

Again, technically correct. You're good at this.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 09:43 PM

#260

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

I mean technically single payer has worked in other countries and technically it will lower overhead costs and technically that should help reduce costs and technically it will give Medicare leverage to push down costs in other areas that other countries have technically done.

But have you considered what it will actually do?

Quote

09-03-2019 , 10:30 PM

#261

Inso0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,825

Technically, American healthcare providers have said the entire system will collapse in on itself if everyone reimbursed at current medicare rates, but I'm sure that's just hyperbole from all these doctors and nurses who are underworked and overpaid. It sorta works for all these tiny European countries, so **** it, let's goooooooo!

Quote

09-03-2019 , 10:50 PM

#262

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inso0

Well, for one, I think they are lying, as they have every reason to, and two, even if they are not, it is a solvable problem.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 11:21 PM

#263

Regret$

burnt out

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,124

The current system is already collapsed for ~35% of the population.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 11:27 PM

#264

Inso0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,825

Agreed. It's only fair that we screw it up for the other 64% who can't keep private doctors on staff, too.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 11:34 PM

#265

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inso0

Agreed. It's only fair that we screw it up for the other 64% who can't keep private doctors on staff, too.

Again, there are systems that work better than ours that exist right now. We can just copy one of them. Take your pick. And lol if you say anything about geographical area or population size or homogeneity.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 11:41 PM

#266

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

Obamacare was dumb and illfated from the start. How the **** are you seriously going to force someone who cant afford something to buy it?

By offering it at an affordable price to them with the help of government subsidies?

Quote

09-04-2019 , 12:07 AM

#267

Regret$

burnt out

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,124

Technically, thats not actually a solution if someone can't afford it. So congrats on both technically not a solution and in practice not a solution. megathumbsup

Quote

09-04-2019 , 12:39 AM

#268

grando1.0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 17,111

It's unfortunate that the United States would need to dedicate more money to health care, as their per capita expenditure on health care is nowhere near other developed countries

Quote

09-04-2019 , 12:39 AM

#269

grando1.0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 17,111

Oh wait no it isn't - because it's way higher!

Quote

09-04-2019 , 12:44 AM

#270

grando1.0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 17,111

It must infuriate the people taking the time to talk to beckyhitler that countless other countries have already figured this out but don't have deplorables that their parents didn't abort ruining everyone else's lives.

Quote

09-04-2019 , 08:22 AM

#271

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

Technically, thats not actually a solution if someone can't afford it. So congrats on both technically not a solution and in practice not a solution. megathumbsup

Not sure how offering something that was unaffordable, at an affordable price is somehow not a solution. A poor person can now afford a $300 month plan for $60 a month. A completely broke person is eligible for medicaid.

Quote

09-04-2019 , 10:24 AM

#272

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inso0

The healthcare provider I worked for also said that they didn't think a union is necessary because it would come between the close relationship and bond me and them hold. I wonder if they're lying.

Quote:

As a result of this development, Medicare provider payment rates are now about 13 percent lower than hospital costs. Shifting all payments to the Medicare provider rates would cut hospital revenue by about 16 percent, according to the authors.

To understand whether this cut would be problematic, it is necessary to look at how much hospitals will be able to save from the streamlined administration of a Medicare for All system. According to a study published in 2014, which was covered subsequently in the New York Times, around 25 percent of hospital revenue is spent on hospital administration. By comparison, hospitals operating in the Canadian single-payer system spend only 12 percent of their revenue on administration.

What this means is that the administrative efficiencies available under a Medicare for All system allow hospitals to offset 13 points of the 16-point revenue cut without digging into the actual cost of care. The remaining 3 points could come out of hospital profit margin (bringing the margin from 7 percent to 4 percent) or, as Dean Baker notes, from lowering the prices of hospital inputs, including the extremely high prices they currently pay for drugs and medical equipment.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...icare-for-all/

Quote:

What he is saying is that the cost of Medicare for All will be anywhere from 4 percent less than our current system to 7 percent more than our current system. The 4 percent savings (which is $2 trillion of savings over 10 years) is what results when you assume Medicare for All will use Medicare reimbursement rates, which is what the Medicare for All bills require. The 7 percent extra cost is what results when you assume Medicare for All will use somewhat higher reimbursement rates. Notably, Blahous correctly concludes here that this range of 4 percent savings to 7 percent extra cost can be summed up as: no meaningful change.

But what do we get for this reform that does not meaningfully change total health spending? We get the elimination of cost-sharing. We get dental, hearing, and vision benefits. And we get the extension of insurance to 30 million more Americans. Blahous says we can have all this for what we already spend on health care in this country.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...alth-spending/

Quote

09-04-2019 , 10:50 AM

#273

D-Beat

banned

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 3,009

Quote:

Originally Posted by becky88

1. OK, how is being against gay marriage gay-bashing?

2. Believe what you want. Without evidence, the belief if is bullshit.

3. Evidence Obama did not like gay people? And was "swayed" to do so.

I think I know what you're saying, but you're using the wrong words. Maybe to be provacative?

Quote

09-04-2019 , 01:52 PM

#274

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by the pleasure

WHy are a lot of dems against having a public option fo rhealthcare?

think about it, what bernie and waren want will take 10-25 years to implement.

if you keep privates as is but provide a public option. that seems that over time the public option should only strengthen the longer we go.

what am I missing?

seems middle clas wins out because they can get theri own insurane. and peope making less than 20-30K can get in the public option

because if the public option is "for the poors" then the GOP will shred it as soon as they have the chance.

Quote

09-04-2019 , 02:24 PM

#275

wwwnbc

stranger

Join Date: Jun 2019 Posts: 4

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...jcM/story.html

Quote:

Warren is proposing to pay for the plan — which would cost $1 trillion over 10 years — with revenue generated by reversing President Trump’s tax cuts, enacted by Congress in 2017, for large corporations and wealthy individuals.

Quote:

To address greenhouse gas emissions produced by vehicles, Warren would dramatically tighten emissions standards with a goal of making all new cars and small trucks electric or otherwise non-emissions producing by 2030.

Quote:

By 2035, Warren would aim to achieve an electric grid that is “all-clean, renewable, and zero-emission.”

Last edited by wwwnbc; 09-04-2019 at 02:36 PM.