The democratic presidential candidates, do you believe them, what they say, what they promise?
if so, how are these promises possible?
Do You believe the Candidates?
Posts
Total:
68
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The democratic presidential candidates, do you believe them, what they say, what they promise?.
The centrist candidates, people like buttigeg, harris etc would shift right in the general election and a lot of these promises will be tossed. I don't think they can be trusted to follow through because they don't actually believe in these policies. They just know have no hope of winning the nomination without saying that they do.
Sanders certainly means what he says. Warren, it is difficult to say. She is courting alot of centrists, such as hilary clinton and saying she is a "team player". Alot of people read that as meaning she will tack right to appease the Dem establishment.
if so, how are these promises possible?
By actually making the rich and corporations pay their fair share. The richest people in the US pay a lower effective tax rate than you do. They have all the best accountants, tax lawyers and lobbyists, so they have gotten away with not paying their share. Companies like Amazon pay virtually nothing in taxes enough though they take in billions in revenue. Once the rich and corporations start paying in their fair share, it will generate alot of revenue for the government.
And to be clear, for medicare for all, people will stop paying the "private tax" for private health insurance and instead be paying a lower government tax. So one kind of taxes will go up, but a different kind that costs more will be eliminated.
I'd also like to point out that the right never asks these questions when the republicans wants to increase spending. Trump gave 10's of billions more to an already incredibly bloated military budget, he wants to spend 10s of billions on a wall. Republicans cheer for spending money on things that won't benefit them, but when the government wants to spend money on something that would improve people's lives suddenly they are concerned about where the money will come from.
-->
@HistoryBuff
the first part makes a lot of sense and I agree with that.
single payer, eliminating private healthcare does not seem possible or even logical, it appears most other countries do not have that type of system.
I'll have to look but I think taxing all the companies and billionaires 100% still wouldn't be enough. Warren hasn't admitted the middle class will pay more in taxes for the medicare plan, but the fact she hasn't denied it means taxes will go up for the working class. If these plans could be covered by taxing companies like Amazon more etc then that's what they would say over and over, it would be a great selling point but that is apparently too far from reality.
Depending on the state, people earning 30-50k-ish pay about 35% taxes (medicare,medicaid etc) currently (personal experience). How much higher should taxes go up for pay for these plans? At what % would you say we'd have to stop because that's too high a % for people to be taxed at?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
single payer, eliminating private healthcare does not seem possible or even logical, it appears most other countries do not have that type of system.
No one is talking about eliminating private healthcare, they are talking about eliminating private insurance. Those are 2 very separate things.
I watched your video. They use alot of odd talking points. Like pointing out crises in the NHS in the UK. That's true there are, but primarily because right wing people keep trying to de-fund it because they want to let their rich friends profit from a private system. They pointed out a case where a woman had to wait in a hospital bed for in a hallway. That is obviously not an ideal case, but in america the issue is that they instead simply don't allow people like that to get healthcare. it is easy to have enough rooms when a large percentage of your population can't afford to use them. They pointed out that wait times can be long and that is true. But it is because admittance is based on severity. So a rich guy with a broken toe doesn't get in before a guy with a serious medical issue. In Canada, healthcare is given based on need, not on the size of your checkbook.
No one claims that Canadian or UK healthcare is perfect. But no one dies because they can't access a medical procedure. No one goes bankrupt because they got in an accident.
Depending on the state, people earning 30-50k-ish pay about 35% taxes (medicare,medicaid etc) currently (personal experience). How much higher should taxes go up for pay for these plans? At what % would you say we'd have to stop because that's too high a % for people to be taxed at?
You seem to be looking at this backwards. My numbers are just made up as an example for argument. Let's say you pay 35% in taxes and 15% in insurance (premiums, co-pays etc) right now. If a new system increased your taxes to 45%, but eliminated your insurance costs entirely, then you are paying 5% less of your income. You are saving money, not paying more. So asking how much more people can afford to pay is a moot point, because they will be paying less than they are paying now.
Right wing politicians want people to think that paying higher taxes is automatically a terrible thing. Like somehow the fact that the money goes to the government is more evil than money going to a for profit company. But medicare for all will save you money. It will make sure that no one goes bankrupt over medical expenses. It will make sure no one dies because they couldn't afford care.
It is both the best financial and moral policy.
-->
@HistoryBuff
interesting, I had not looked at it the way you described, I could see it being less for those who pay a high price for healthcare, but certainly for those who do not, like many government employees for example, that will be an increase for many others. Essentially I see this as a spread the wealth scheme.
But setting that aside. I would like to see much stronger/better standards for anyone running for any public office. No more "you have to approve it to know what's in it" kind of b.s. It will never change, I am realistic about that. Not as long as you can successfully pander and lie to the right demographics to get elected. It's a shame really, but it's what has been allowed and the new norm. It's just so perplexing to me the large portion of the population that believes the lies and fake promises of people running for office. There must be a few who are trustworthy, can't really think of any, they should be the majority, but I don't believe they are.
I feel we are always left with the choices of who is the least objectionable rather than one you can really get behind. It's not an issue of perfection but transparency and honesty. For all the things I dislike about Sanders at least he tells you how it is, more so than many past and present.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm afraid I don't understand eliminating private insurance companies. Let us say we get universal, government healthcare. Why shouldn't we have the choice to get private insurance which may open avenues for more drugs and treatments that the government doesn't cover?
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm afraid I don't understand eliminating private insurance companies. Let us say we get universal, government healthcare. Why shouldn't we have the choice to get private insurance which may open avenues for more drugs and treatments that the government doesn't cover?
You could under medicare for all. Medicare for all makes it illegal to offer private insurance that is duplicative, but does not ban private insurance companies outright. So if medicare for all covers a medication or procedure, you cannot try to sell someone insurance for it (because they already have coverage). Since medicare for all covers pretty much everything, that would essentially ban private insurance because there is very little for them to insure people against that they don't already have coverage for. But if there is something medicare for all didn't cover, then an insurance company could certainly sell insurance for that.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I could see it being less for those who pay a high price for healthcare, but certainly for those who do not, like many government employees for example, that will be an increase for many others.
But would it be? At the moment companies can use insurance in lieu of payment. They can even use it to prevent people from leaving to get another job because if you go uninsured even temporarily it could ruin you. If medicare for all was the law then they couldn't do that. They would then need to offer other forms of compensation instead to attract and keep their employees. IE they would need to pay their employees more.
I would like to see much stronger/better standards for anyone running for any public office.
Agreed. But it is part of the structural problems with politics. Politicians care WAY more concerned with what their campaign donors think than with what you think. So they will say what they think people want them to during an election. But when it is over they are going to go right back to what their donors want them to. The system is broken and needs to be changed.
What we need is public financing of elections. Something in the general vein of Andrew Yang's freedom dividend. In this, every person in america would have a specific amount of money they could give to any politician they want. They couldn't use it for anything else. At the same time you would put much more restrictions, or ban outright private donations to politicians. If you do that, then every voter is a potential campaign donor. If you ignore what the electorate want, then you can't raise money or get votes. It would remove alot of the corruption from politics by removing the incentives to act against the interests of their voters.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok, I see. But why should it matter if they also offer to cover something that the government already does? Doesn't seem like outlawing it would be necessary because there wouldn't be much if any demand for it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You seem to be looking at this backwards. My numbers are just made up as an example for argument. Let's say you pay 35% in taxes and 15% in insurance (premiums, co-pays etc) right now. If a new system increased your taxes to 45%, but eliminated your insurance costs entirely, then you are paying 5% less of your income. You are saving money, not paying more. So asking how much more people can afford to pay is a moot point, because they will be paying less than they are paying now.Right wing politicians want people to think that paying higher taxes is automatically a terrible thing. Like somehow the fact that the money goes to the government is more evil than money going to a for profit company. But medicare for all will save you money. It will make sure that no one goes bankrupt over medical expenses. It will make sure no one dies because they couldn't afford care.It is both the best financial and moral policy.
While it is true that single-payer or Medicare-for-all would be good financial policy if they saved more healthcare money than they took in taxes, the simple fact is that they take more in taxes than they could ever save. Both California and Vermont strongly considered moving to single-payer. But even though they are both solid blue, far left states, they ultimately rejected it. Why? Because the plans would have had an annual cost of roughly $25,000 per household. There is no conceivable way that could save money.
I believe only Warren, the rest are shady.
-->
@HistoryBuff
High taxes are great if you work in the government.
-->
@bmdrocks21
They might be able to trick people into buying coverage for something when they already have coverage for it. In a new system there will always be confusion around what is or isn't covered. People would try to take advantage of that confusion. It is much simpler this way. If medicare for all covers something, then you can't charge people money to duplicate something they already have.Ok, I see. But why should it matter if they also offer to cover something that the government already does? Doesn't seem like outlawing it would be necessary because there wouldn't be much if any demand for it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok, but don't you believe that eliminating the competitive aspect of the insurance market would be a bad thing? In order to keep costs down without competition, I am going to hazard a guess and say that you would price fix("negotiate") treatments' costs in order to make universal healthcare more affordable.
(I don't think this market is currently as competitive as it should be and there are a variety of ways to fix that).
-->
@SirAnonymous
the simple fact is that they take more in taxes than they could ever save. Both California and Vermont strongly considered moving to single-payer. But even though they are both solid blue, far left states, they ultimately rejected it. Why? Because the plans would have had an annual cost of roughly $25,000 per household.
Could you provide references to that? I took a look and the information I found said California approved it but the governor kept vetoing it. I'm not sure where you got that information from.
There is no conceivable way that could save money.
The current studies disagree. Even the studies done by right wing think tanks I have seen say that america could cover everyone and pay less. Here is a link to an article discussing a recent study which found america would save $886 billion over 10 years. Every study I have seen says Americans would save money.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Could you provide references to that? I took a look and the information I found said California approved it but the governor kept vetoing it. I'm not sure where you got that information from.
I once did a bunch of research into the topic and had the sources saved on a computer, but at some point I deleted them, and I can't find them again. Here is a different source explaining in brief that Vermont, California, and Colorado rejected single-payer and the costs that caused them to do so:
In any case, it's just simple math. Bernie Sanders' proposed plan would cost America $32 trillion over 10 years, or 3.2 trillion dollars per year. In 2018, there were 127.59 million households in America. A cost of $3.2 trillion spread over 127.59 million households is $25,000 per year. If you go by each person instead of each household, it's just shy of $10,000 a year (using a population of 330 million).
The current studies disagree. Even the studies done by right wing think tanks I have seen say that america could cover everyone and pay less. Here is a link to an article discussing a recent study which found america would save $886 billion over 10 years. Every study I have seen says Americans would save money.
The studies you looked at disagree. That does not mean that all, most, or even a majority disagree. Here is a study from RAND examining the effects of a proposed single-payer plan in New York:
To quote their conclusion in full:
"This analysis shows that a single-payer approach in New York could expand coverage while reducing total health spending, assuming that the state is able to negotiate slower growth of provider payments and trim administrative expenses. While these assumptions are reasonable, they are also highly uncertain and depend on providers’ bargaining power, the state’s ability to administer the plan efficiently, and the federal government’s willingness to grant waivers to the state. The analysis also assumes one possible progressive tax rate schedule to finance NYH. This tax schedule would reduce average health care payments for a majority of the population; however, the viability of this tax schedule assumes that few high-income residents find ways to avoid taxation. If only a small percentage of the highest-income residents found ways to avoid taxes, the schedule would need to be reworked, potentially increasing the burden on middle- and lower-income residents. Overall, these results suggest that the single-payer option has the potential to lower payments for the majority of New Yorkers, but the results depend on assumptions about uncertain factors." (italics mine)
To quote the headline of a National Review article discussing the study, "If you assume single-payer saves money, it does." Whenever a study says that single-payer will save money, you need to examine the assumptions of the study. For instance, the RAND study assumed that provider payments will increase at the same rate as in Medicare and Medicaid, which is less than the rate at which private payments are growing. With that assumption, NY's plan would save 3% of their total healthcare spending after ten years. But if you assume that the payments will increase at the private rate, spending will go up by 12% in ten years.
Another study by Charles Blahous of the Mercator institute was used by some to claim that Sanders' plan would save $2 trillion over ten years. However, that analysis assumed that Medicare-for-all would pay hospitals at the Medicare rate. The problem with that is that the Medicare rate only pays hospitals for 87% of their costs. The only reason hospitals can afford that is because private insurers pay 144% of the costs. If that assumption became reality, hospitals would go bankrupt. In order to prevent that, the plan would have to either pay 100% or more, eliminating the $2 trillion dollars in savings, or hospitals would have to make drastic cuts, reducing both the quality of and access to healthcare.
The point here is simple: No matter how hard you try, you cannot guarantee something high quality to everyone at an affordable cost. This applies to anything, not just healthcare (or health insurance, in this case). Communist countries in the Cold War proved this time and again. If it is high quality and affordable, it can not be made available to everyone. This happens all the time in Canada. Their average wait time for a doctor's appointment is 20 weeks. (Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/3084366/q-a-how-long-are-medical-wait-times-in-canada-by-province-and-procedure/) By contrast, America has only a 24 day or 3.5 week delay. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/03/19/doctor-wait-times-soar-amid-trumpcare-debate/#2f64301f2e74) One of the main reasons that Canada's system supposedly works so well is that tens of thousands of Canadians get their healthcare by coming to America (45,000 in 2015 according to https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-tourists-drop-1.3800729). Can you imagine what their waiting time for an appointment would be if you added 45,000 people to the waiting lists?
-->
@HistoryBuff
the unions don't seem to be a fan of medicare for all, one less thing they can negotiate for, it would weaken them a great deal, good or bad it will have a big impact on them.
if it would save people money that would be front on center when they talk about it, but that is not the case, prime example is when they tried to nail down Warren on the issue, whether it will cost middle income people more or not. Obviously it will since she has yet to answer the question.
-->
@SirAnonymous
very informative, based on that I could see providers essentially creating their own "union", that has been done and threaten before. Can you imagine?
-->
@SirAnonymous
If they want it to be affordable, they have to "negotiate". That is essentially price fixing, as they will have a 100% market share. We don't price fix, which is why we lead the world in innovation.
It takes on average 12 years and $350 million to get a new drug through the FDA. If we limit a company's ability to make a profit, I doubt we will continue to make so many new lifesaving drugs.
-->
@bmdrocks21
If they want it to be affordable, they have to "negotiate". That is essentially price fixing, as they will have a 100% market share. We don't price fix, which is why we lead the world in innovation.It takes on average 12 years and $350 million to get a new drug through the FDA. If we limit a company's ability to make a profit, I doubt we will continue to make so many new lifesaving drugs.
Exactly.
Here's what I think of the top 3 on these issues.
1= serious, believes in it
2= semi serious, semi pandering
3= doesn't really believe, pandering
Bernie Medicare for all 1
Reparations 2
Eliminating student debt 1
Biden Medicare for all 2 (mostly because of Obamacare)
Reparations 3
Eliminating student debt 3
Warren I would rank her same as Biden
those seem to be the main issues I think, feel free to add.
-->
@SirAnonymous
In 2018, there were 127.59 million households in America. A cost of $3.2 trillion spread over 127.59 million households is $25,000 per year. If you go by each person instead of each household, it's just shy of $10,000 a year (using a population of 330 million).
The US healthcare costs in in 2017 was 3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person. That means that costs would be going down from what is being paid now. You are attempting to argue people couldn't afford to pay less than they are currently paying.
Another study by Charles Blahous of the Mercator institute was used by some to claim that Sanders' plan would save $2 trillion over ten years. However, that analysis assumed that Medicare-for-all would pay hospitals at the Medicare rate. The problem with that is that the Medicare rate only pays hospitals for 87% of their costs. The only reason hospitals can afford that is because private insurers pay 144% of the costs.
That study is interesting. Although it is unclear if it is fully valid. For example I was looking at some of their sources and they are based on research done on the costs of hospitals in the early 90's. The medical industries have changed alot in the last 25 years. I'm not saying study isn't valid, but it is hard to tell without taking a deeper look at it.
One of the main reasons that Canada's system supposedly works so well is that tens of thousands of Canadians get their healthcare by coming to America (45,000 in 2015 according to https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-tourists-drop-1.3800729). Can you imagine what their waiting time for an appointment would be if you added 45,000 people to the waiting lists?
45,000 out of a population of 37.5 million. That is a tiny fraction.
-->
@bmdrocks21
If they want it to be affordable, they have to "negotiate". That is essentially price fixing, as they will have a 100% market share. We don't price fix, which is why we lead the world in innovation.
Do you though? if you look at straight numbers of how many research papers are published, then absolutely, the US is the top of the pack. But if you take into account the size of the population of the countries, then many other countries do more medical research per captia. It's easy to say you lead the world when you have 2-10 times the population of most of the other advanced countries in the world.
It takes on average 12 years and $350 million to get a new drug through the FDA. If we limit a company's ability to make a profit, I doubt we will continue to make so many new lifesaving drugs.
Removing their ability to price gouge doesn't stop them from turning a profit. For example insulin in Canada is about $32 a vial. In the US that same vial will cost you about $300 dollars. Drug companies are not going bankrupt in Canada. There is no reason they should be allowed to get away with that. The real issue is that drug companies, with their patents, get a monopoly on the market and then they can price fix all they want. If the consumers had a significant bargaining position, they wouldn't be able to do that. A single payer system gives consumers that bargaining power.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well, I am all for reforming how our patents work. The essentially patent the exact same drug with minor differences.
The drug companies need to make a profit somehow. That is why they choose America, because they will allow them to make large profits and return their R & D costs. It is a huge investment spending millions of dollars and having to wait 12 years to start making it back(if it passes through at all).
If we could make the process of passing through FDA regulations cheaper and less time-consuming, perhaps they wouldn't need to charge as much.
I think we still have a higher per capita paper rate than most(if not all) other countries, but I could be wrong.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the unions don't seem to be a fan of medicare for all, one less thing they can negotiate for, it would weaken them a great deal, good or bad it will have a big impact on them.
Ok. is that relevant? They want to have as much control and power over the members of their unions as possible. Of course they don't want everyone to be guaranteed health care, because that weakens their control over their members. Luckily, Sanders and Warren both have big plans on how to strengthen unions at the same time.
if it would save people money that would be front on center when they talk about it, but that is not the case, prime example is when they tried to nail down Warren on the issue, whether it will cost middle income people more or not. Obviously it will since she has yet to answer the question.
She has answered the question dozens of times. She is just trying to avoid giving right wing media a soundbite. Her answer is that you will pay less because you will no longer be paying co-pays, premiums etc. So you will be paying less than you are paying right now. But alot of americans have it in their head that paying lots of money to a private company is somehow better than paying a little money to the government so she doesn't want to say the words "taxes will go up", even if their total costs are going down. The media would immediately jump on it and say "taxes are going up on the middle class" despite the fact that they would be saving money. Alot of people aren't very savvy and would immediately hate the idea.
But i agree she should just come out and say public taxes will increase but your private taxes will come down by alot more.
-->
@HistoryBuff
you will no longer be paying co-pays, premiums etc.
but that's not how medicare currently works, there are out of pocket expenses and premiums, heck if you want prescription drug coverage that's a totally different policy, it's an addon.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The US healthcare costs in in 2017 was 3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person. That means that costs would be going down from what is being paid now. You are attempting to argue people couldn't afford to pay less than they are currently paying.
Only if you don't read the second half of my post. The first half (by which I mean the part between the first and second quotes) assumes that the studies concluding single-payer would save money are accurate. The second half of my post explains why they are probably underestimating the costs and that single-payer would not actually save money. I didn't make that clear when I wrote it, though, which made it confusing.
45,000 out of a population of 37.5 million. That is a tiny fraction.
Sure, but that still doesn't change the fact that their single-payer healthcare system isn't nearly as good as advertised.
-->
@HistoryBuff
She has answered the question dozens of times. She is just trying to avoid giving right wing media a soundbite. Her answer is that you will pay less because you will no longer be paying co-pays, premiums etc. So you will be paying less than you are paying right now.
It isn't that she's trying to avoid giving a soundbite. She is lying outright and saying middle class tax rates won't have to go up. Even Sanders knows better than that and is honest enough to say so. Warren is trying to have it both ways by eliminating private insurance and instituting single-payer without paying for it in taxes. In reality, someone has to pay for health insurance. There is no such thing as a free health insurance policy.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The current medicare system is a seriously flawed system. Medicare for all covers everything with no out of pocket expenses(I think there was a maximum of like $100 per year for drugs, but I could be wrong). It is a very different plan. People like Biden want to do very marginal expansions of the current medicare system. Sanders and (probably) warren want a serious overhaul of the system to cover everyone.but that's not how medicare currently works, there are out of pocket expenses and premiums, heck if you want prescription drug coverage that's a totally different policy, it's an addon.