View Full Version : Looking for SLN Pundits on the Democratic Debate
catherine
11-21-19, 12:19pm
I've been traveling for 4 days straight on little sleep and it appears I can't do what I used to do because I hit a wall at home last night and crashed at 8:30pm, missing the Democratic debates. :(
Looking for analysis and reviews.
Biden gaffed on the number of black female Senators in the presence of the one he failed to count.
Rachel Maddow seemed sort of obsessed with impeachment, on which there seemed little difference of opinion among the candidates.
Harris attacked Gabbard for appearing on Fox News too much and acquiring Fox News cooties.
The pack didn’t attack Mayor Pete to the extent I expected, despite his current strong showing in Iowa polls. Perhaps because they saw that his poor numbers with black voters meant he wasn’t a long term threat.
There seemed to be something of a belief in the magical powers of the presidency to create legislation, assign pariah status to other nations or direct the economy. I kept thinking of Mr Obama’s admonition about rooting plans in reality.
I thought it was interesting watching the remaining candidates try to advance or at least hold their ground in a venue that may have been the lowest rated news event of the day after two full days of impeachment hearings.
Elizabeth Warren continued her pledge to lighten rich peoples pockets of undeserved coin and stayed on point even after Cory Booker reminded her that the Democratic Party should stop their war on the rich and start promoting ways for everyone to enhance their wealth as well. She also seems to have abandoned her numbers challenged Medicare For All plan since it didn't seem to come up and no one thought to ask her for an update. She and Bernie seem to be competing for the same party demographic but it seems to me that Bernie has better charisma so I'm not sure she can keep her recent gains as the campaign continues.
Kamala Harris continued her recent attempts to come off as a down-home candidate but it didn't seem to help her much. She went after Tulsi Gabbard but seemed to wish she'd left that stone unturned before Tulsi's response was completed. The highlight of her night was being forgotten by Joe Biden during his recitation of black, female senators which didn't include her.
Joe Biden continued reminding us that he either wrote or went out of his way to support every piece of popular legislation ever produced. I didn't know whether to be impressed with his single handed accomplishments or doubt his every word. It actually made me think of Ultralight's irritating 'OK Boomer' antics, I suddenly understood why that sort of slight becomes popular. I thought he may get some grief today about his use of the term 'punching' when describing his monumental protection of domestic violence victims, but maybe no one else noticed. I went into the debate thinking someone would surely congratulate him on his just discovered 15 month old grandchild but the group as a whole seemed to be much more polite with each other than they are to the average Republican.
Pete Boot-edge-edge seemed smooth and polished as usual but I was amused to see a flash of anger in his eyes during an exchange with Tulsi Gabbard, he got control of himself right away and continued his calm, cool facade. Someone, somewhere once wrote that Mayor Pete 'had all the right words', and he still does. I suspected the recent revelation that a good portion of the Democratic base had problems with his being gay might come up, but it didn't. I guess no one else wants to admit that's even a problem within their party and I don't blame them.
Amy Klobuchar worried me. I was immediately fixated with the fact that she appeared to be shaking uncontrollably from every camera angle as she spoke. Her hair actually seemed to be vibrating, and as a result I don't remember anything she had to say.
As I mentioned in real time on another thread, Cory Booker had what I considered to be his true 'I am Spartacus' moment when he challenged Senator Warrens fixation on confiscating wealth. He also made a point of reminding us that Mayor Pete wasn't the only Rhodes scholar on the stage. Other than those two memorable exchanges, I found his other contributions to be boring.
Bernie was his typical charming curmudgeon self. I don't recall him saying anything we haven't heard from him at least a thousand times.
I'm confused as to why Andrew Yang is still in the running. I can understand Tom Steyer since he's spent roughly $300M of his own money in self promotion, but I don't see either of them as viable candidates. On second thought, I guess self-promotion may explain both of their presence in the field.
Tulsi Gabbard held her own when Mayor Pete and Senator Harris went after her, but she seems like Vice President material at best to me.
Teacher Terry
11-21-19, 3:52pm
Alan, your analysis pretty much sums it up.
Biden was bumbling and ineffective so Bloomberg is probably more likely to get in though late entrants have problems. (Deval Patrick decided to have his own event in Atlanta and only two people showed up.)
There was not enough discussion of foreign policy, though Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders did get to make a few non-interventionist points briefly and demonstrated concern not just for Americans but other human beings around the world. At least we didn't have to hear the same health care topic already hashed out endlessly in previous debates.
Kamala Harris attacked Gabbard for appealing to other than core Democratic Party voters. Some reviewers said Harris had her best debate yet, but I felt the positive audience reaction was due to the Atlanta locale. I find her hectoring tone and habit of seeming highly enamored with her own words very annoying.
Gabbard went after Hillary Clinton and the other machine Democrats and she and Buttigieg briefly tussled over the US sending military forces to Mexico to fight the cartels.
Booker called out Biden for opposing legalization of marijuana since the war on drugs has been waged in a racially discriminatory manner.
Amy Klobuchar is trying to pick up the women's issues mantle Kirsten Gillibrand used to wear.
Yang was personable and had a sense of humor and Booker was personable even when on the offensive, maybe because no one was going after him. Steyer and Buttigieg both seemed scripted and didn't offer anything new. Warren also stuck to her script but didn't have a robotic delivery.
The app was awful and kept going out and sometimes rewinding and repeating itself once or twice.
Edited to add: Warren did vow to not reward bundlers with ambassadorships a la Gordon Sondland but no one else would take the pledge.
The most frequently used phrase in tonight's debate: Millionaires and Billionaires
My take-away: They don't like em!
catherine
12-20-19, 12:09am
I actually thought it was a good debate. It's interesting, however, watching the Democratic debates with a Trump-loving DH. I seriously need a glass of wine and some solitude right now.
I thought that the smaller stage with 7 contenders really helped some shine. I still love Bernie. Elizabeth is a copy. Joe did better than he did in past debates. Pete got reamed by the women, but gave it back effectively. I like Amy--she was not bad.. There was point where they all were doing the politically cloying thing, but it wasn't excessive. I like Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang, especially Yang. His extemporaneous response after being the first to respond after Judy Woodruff's off the wall Christmas ask was great.
Overall, pretty entertaining. My opinion of Bernie is the same, my opinion of Amy, Tom, and Andrew might have nudged up a tad; my opinion of Liz and Pete might have gone down a tad, and Joe is just Joe.
Steyer and Buttigieg seemed rehearsed, Sanders to a lesser degree (he talked about things like Palestinians that are not rehashes of his stump speeches), Warren still couldn't get traction on let's not sell ambassadorships even from self-proclaimed reformers like Steyer, Biden was boring but less bumbling than in other debates, maybe because the attacks were now focused on Buttigieg. Yang was refreshing - stayed on topic, answered the questions, was specific, and didn't run over his time. I would love to see him debate Trump. Klobuchar made points she has not previously while still sticking to her themes. The two women both said they would ask for forgiveness whereas all five men said they would give a gift, maybe an indication of how we are socialized by gender - women to be agreeable and not offend, men to be confident like they are God's gift, in this case not to women but to the nation.
catherine
12-20-19, 12:27am
The two women both said they would ask for forgiveness whereas all five men said they would give a gift, maybe an indication of how we are socialized by gender - women to be agreeable and not offend, men to be confident like they are God's gift, in this case not to women but to the nation.
Very interesting observation. Boy, if those two women still play by those rules, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Teacher Terry
12-20-19, 12:29am
My husband voted for trump but told my son last night he is a moron. It will be interesting to see who he votes for next time. I assumed last election he voted independent. I never asked who he voted for and actually wish he had never told me. The hatred of Hillary was that great. I don’t understand it.
catherine
12-20-19, 12:33am
I never asked who he voted for and actually wish he had never told me. The hatred of Hillary was that great.
Because she probably wouldn't have asked for forgiveness.
Teacher Terry
12-20-19, 12:36am
It’s funny because my ex and I agreed on nothing but politics. My husband and I agree on everything but politics. But my ex married a Republican but even she didn’t vote for trump. We laugh that we each have our own Republicans:))
I thought last night’s debate was pretty pedestrian. Rich people lecturing less-rich people about the corrosive nature of money. Much of the talk made it sound like we are in the depths of an economic depression. Wishful thinking, I guess. A half dozen white people talking about the necessity for our politics to become less white, although I didn’t see any of them offer up their seat on the bus. I think I might consider Klobachar over Trump in November.
How many more of these things before Iowa?
ApatheticNoMore
12-20-19, 11:41am
Sanders was very strong hitting it hard on climate change, Warren did well. I like Steyer, he may be few people's top choice, but I wouldn't mind him as Prez. The rest did ok. I was asked who did least well, uh I don't know maybe Pete or Yang - really noone did that badly that I could recall, they all did ok (Klobuchar did well - but it's hard to sell you are the one who can win against Trump - which was her whole pitch - when you can't even poll much among Dems). But then I was reminded Biden was on stage. Oh. I forgot he was on stage entirely! I guess that's doing bad, when you can't even remember they are on on stage.
Yang missed his big line on what to give people as a gift: should have been: $1000 a month ... for everyone on this stage
Sanders was very strong hitting it hard on climate change.
Even when the question was unrelated to climate change.
ApatheticNoMore
12-20-19, 12:10pm
Even when the question was unrelated to climate change.
yes I LOVED that!! I cheered.
A+ - if you've got the grades, flaunt em (but A is also a good grade :) ):
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate2020/
"Every election is a climate election" as Greta says.
He won't win on just climate, but he's not trying to.
It was good to see the field whittled down to get a better idea of things. My ranking of favorites has changed some, but I pretty much decided that any of them could be a competent president. I did not feel that way about Hillary and pretty much held my nose while voting. Other than Biden, I thought the older candidates all seemed vital, current and fresh. Joe is at the bottom of my choices because he falls into the good old boy school. I also did not get the impression of strong commitment and sincerity on the climate crisis issues. The wealth tax that some propose is a wild card as are some of the give away programs, but I suspect there will come to be a middle ground reality and idealism with meet. In that respect, none are perfect.
JaneV2.0
12-20-19, 12:40pm
I'm over old throwbacks and has-beens--old thinkers in general. I'll vote for Biden only if I'm backed into a corner.
I might vote Green or Libertarian if it were Biden vs Trump.
I might vote Green or Libertarian if it were Biden vs Trump.
I was thinking much the same thing.
Except for the Green part.
Teacher Terry
12-21-19, 11:53am
Voting for a third party candidate will help trump. Ugh!
I never feel badly about voting third party or writing in candidates. I would feel badly about not voting at all.
rosarugosa
12-22-19, 7:40am
Voting for a third party candidate will help trump. Ugh!
Not in Massachusetts. We could even vote for Trump and it wouldn't help Trump. The democratic candidate will win in our state.
My take on tonight's debate:
Steyer finally got more time and did OK, but no one sees him as a real threat. He spoke in favor of term limits and none of the incumbent politicians bothered to respond.
Klobuchar stuck to her pragmatist themes, but was always running over her allotted time and seemed a little desperate as a result.
Biden was careful to stay within the time limits and presented himself as a safe choice, but had no vision. The most supportive reactions he got were when he talked about Trump picking on him and his son, not any policies or programs to help the voters.
Buttigieg didn't stand out to me. He spoke in lofty but vague phrases about his vision of uniting the country post-Trump. He and Klobuchar both said Trump is so bad and I'm not Trump I'm decent, but everyone running can say that. Also several times he didn't answer the question he was asked. I liked the Des Moines Register reporter for calling people out when they did this.
Sanders by contrast focused on policy, but came across as shrill sometimes. I do like that he is the only one willing to take the strong measures needed to keep health care from bankrupting the country as our population ages.
Warren was passionate, did not come across as scripted at all, had policy specifics and did a good job addressing her electability. Her weakness is she has backed away from a single payer plan that covers everyone yet her plan is still expensive. But I felt in energy and tone she won this debate, and that she was particularly strong on corruption in government, which Sanders and Steyer also touched on.
catherine
1-15-20, 12:44am
I didn't see much new on the stage. Very few applause lines, but maybe that's because the room was filled with Iowans. I agree that Elizabeth Warren probably won the night. She did a great job in general and in particular on the question about the latest "scandal" about Bernie telling her a woman wouldn't/couldn't win.
I don't think any needles moved much. Klobuchar maybe slightly strengthened her position, but overall, I don't see any huge shift in poll numbers as a result of the lackluster rerun of the candidates' talking points. They must be getting sick of getting asked the same questions, too.
Biden seemed wooden, Mayor Pete seemed kind of frightened and frozen, I thought Klobuchar was good sometimes and not so good other--loved that she brought out the sandwich generation and long term care. I actually thought the Warren/Sanders woman president was rather negative for all, but I thought they both handled it pretty well.
The questions seemed off, and the energy was really down--we watched only first hour, so maybe it got better.
I found myself missing the livelier candidates like Yang, Booker, and Harris, and I don't even like Harris at all. But she had energy. Castro had good ideas, too.
I can't see Biden surging ahead after that. He seemed subdued, like people had told him to shut up to prevent gaffes.
I actually thought the Warren/Sanders woman president was rather negative for all, but I thought they both handled it pretty well.I think she downplayed the issue well, although watching her body language as Sanders defended himself convinced me she lied about the whole thing. Her refusal to make eye contact with anyone while he talked was telling.
I think she downplayed the issue well, although watching her body language as Sanders defended himself convinced me she lied about the whole thing. Her refusal to make eye contact with anyone while he talked was telling.
I thought much the same thing. Warren has made revisions to past events before, and the issue coming up at such a tactically advantageous time seemed a bit smelly to me.
All in all, it seemed to mostly be an evening spent trying to avoid mistakes.
They’re shutting out Yang and pushing for Biden. Repeat of shutting out Bernie and pushing Hillary 4 years ago. It’s deja vu and Trumps gonna win against because of the democratic party’s ridiculous politicking.
They’re shutting out Yang and pushing for Biden. Repeat of shutting out Bernie and pushing Hillary 4 years ago. It’s deja vu and Trumps gonna win against because of the democratic party’s ridiculous politicking.
Wouldn’t the same polling and fundraising criteria apply to him as any of the others? It would not seem that some party cabal was working to shut him out so much as a relative lack of interest on the part of potential voters and donors.
It’s deja vu and Trumps gonna win against because of the democratic party’s ridiculous politicking.
Watching the debate last night, my conclusion was that Trump will get re-elected unless he's in jail first.
Watching the debate last night, my conclusion was that Trump will get re-elected unless he's in jail first.
For the “Party of the Ascendant”, they do seem a bit on the pale side. As one wag put it, you no longer need a color TV to watch the debates.
Will the primaries generate a electable candidate, or at least more electable than the current buffoon? You wouldn’t think it would be that hard. Five years ago, I would have had no doubt, but now I have no clue. I suspect we will be hearing more about how Russian Facebook posts did them in if they lose.
I think it might be better to return to the smoke filled room system.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-20, 12:43pm
Or Trump might win because of:
1) the good economy (highly manipulated but that's not reported on hardly at all, and it is better on main street and that matters more than such abstractions) plus
2) incumbent advantage.
I mean wouldn't that be the most obvious explanation? Almost all incumbents have won.
I know people WANT TO BELIEVE they have some sort of agency to get Trump out by electing the right person, because they like believing in agency, that if only they could determine exactly who it is (oh this person has this plus and that minus and this person ...). Give it up. Elect someone good etc. sure and campaign for them (and if you can stomach it campaign for whoever the nom is, and if you can't don't). But after that ...
Because she probably wouldn't have asked for forgiveness.
:+1:
My only thought on Biden is that he may be the only candidate who can beat Trump, precisely because he's a wooden invisible flavorless old rich white man. He'd get the Dem vote in the end even if he's a very disappointing candidate, but more importantly, he might get the conservative vote over Trump as well. (I know I keep stumping for Biden, please don't mistake my resigned support for enthusiasm, I'm just trying to be practical about how to best remove the orange fungus from the white house.)
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-20, 10:46pm
My only thought on Biden is that he may be the only candidate who can beat Trump, precisely because he's a wooden invisible flavorless old rich white man. He'd get the Dem vote in the end even if he's a very disappointing candidate, but more importantly, he might get the conservative vote over Trump as well. (I know I keep stumping for Biden, please don't mistake my resigned support for enthusiasm, I'm just trying to be practical about how to best remove the orange fungus from the white house.)
Yea if one thought he was a fairly strong candidate but wasn't a fan of his policy, I could see this argument. But I find it hard to believe a candidate who can't say a sentence without stumbling is a strong candidate. I could be wrong. Someone might say: yea well, Trump is president! Yea but Trump's flaw there, wasn't that he could not talk, but that his speech did not cohere into any sort of even wrong argument (unlike any other of his Republican opponents). It's a level of subtlety above can't say a sentence without stumbling. And even if one believes it's stuttering with Biden, training the whole electorate on stuttering awareness, is not so easy. Trump of course is also very probably deteriorating mentally quite a lot but I'm not sure if that really helps Biden that much. There were better boring straight white males who dropped out or will.
Trump is more concise with his one liner zings and brief Tweets. He has experience in newer media like reality TV. Biden is trying to not ramble, which results in his sometimes stopping midsentence in debates. He has trouble expressing himself, backtracking to correct what he says. When not under time pressure from a debate he rambles. I noticed this when I heard him in person.
The establishment believes only Biden can win. They thought that about Hillary too. They are wrong.
My only thought on Biden is that he may be the only candidate who can beat Trump, precisely because he's a wooden invisible flavorless old rich white man.
The establishment believes only Biden can win. They thought that about Hillary too. They are wrong.
I don't think anyone who can't stir people can win--doesn't matter what their qualifications are on paper. I agree with ANM and Yppej--Biden may be the "logical" contender, and, yes, he's the DNC darling, but that and $5 will buy you a copy of the November 5th NYTimes that will be announcing Trump's win.
I would say Bernie is the only one that has succeeded in getting the hearts as well as the minds of a good number of people looking for a Trump alternative, but the DNC will probably give him the shaft again, and it is a bit of a gamble to put someone so left of center up there to beat Trump, but I think it's worth a try.
The establishment believes only Biden can win. They thought that about Hillary too. They are wrong.
I could be corrected on this, but I seem to recall that in 2016 the polls showed Bernie would do better against Trump than Hillary.
I missed the last debate other than news summaries but I still think any of them would make a better president than Donald. Biden is at the bottom of my favorites.
catherine
1-16-20, 10:56am
What about the ONLY interesting sideshow of the debate? After the debate, when Warren seemed to have some not-too-friendly words with Bernie instead of shaking his hand. They've come up with the audio for that exchange--Elizabeth said to him, "I think you called me a liar on national TV," and a short exchange ensued.
My thought is, after all these years in politics and the media, was she so enflamed and annoyed by Bernie that she stupidly let down her guard and lashed out in full view of all the people watching?? Do you think this 10 seconds will hurt either campalgn?
What about the ONLY interesting sideshow of the debate? After the debate, when Warren seemed to have some not-too-friendly words with Bernie instead of shaking his hand. They've come up with the audio for that exchange--Elizabeth said to him, "I think you called me a liar on national TV," and a short exchange ensued.
My thought is, after all these years in politics and the media, was she so enflamed and annoyed by Bernie that she stupidly let down her guard and lashed out in full view of all the people watching?? Do you think this 10 seconds will hurt either campalgn?
Well, they can’t both be telling the truth. I think their respective followers will continue the kerfuffle past ten seconds. In 2016 the Bernie supporters seemed to nurse a bit of a grudge over the way he was treated.
Personally, I think her campaign put the story out there a few days in advance of the debate because they new she would be asked about it and could deliver her “ women can win” moment.
I’m not sure her righteous anger display afterward wasn’t also a calculated move to display toughness.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-20, 12:03pm
I think it will hurt both campaigns. Biden as the nominee, and probably loses to Trump. I'm not sure the whole thing wasn't scripted. Noone will ever really know what was said and a conversation that only two people were ever privy to isn't evidence, period. Maybe the NSA cares to step in. It shouldn't even be reported if we had legitimate news instead of CNN, I mean you have actual evidence of something, then fine, that kind of dirty is used all the time, we had two governor candidates cheating on their wives last time here, but not this, this isn't even evidence. She could have said anything, that Sander's went into a racist rant at the dinner table, and it wouldn't be disprovable (just even more out of character for Sanders and so even less believable). But talking about it only a few weeks before the election is definitely a planned move and dirty.
I think if it comes up in the debate, it’s legitimate news.
I think it was interesting how the moderator first gave Bernie the chance to deny it, but then proceeded to ask Warren a question that assumed it was true.
I’m inclined to believe Bernie, given Warren’s history of revising her history to suit the political needs of the moment. I think Bernie’s quite mad, but he’s honest.
What about the ONLY interesting sideshow of the debate? After the debate, when Warren seemed to have some not-too-friendly words with Bernie instead of shaking his hand. They've come up with the audio for that exchange--Elizabeth said to him, "I think you called me a liar on national TV," and a short exchange ensued.
My thought is, after all these years in politics and the media, was she so enflamed and annoyed by Bernie that she stupidly let down her guard and lashed out in full view of all the people watching?? Do you think this 10 seconds will hurt either campalgn?
You are so right--this was where the real drama occurred, it seems to me. Both looked genuinely shook. I think she did lash out. Not sure if it hurt or helped her. The body language was very telling--to me, she seemed to be telling the truth, and he did not handle it well. I thought. I thought she actually came off the winner.
The establishment believes only Biden can win. They thought that about Hillary too. They are wrong. Hillary is an entirely different story. She was the polar opposite of Biden - fiery, more to the left, the wife of a very controversial, polarizing president, and a woman. My point about Biden is that he's none of these, he's the vanilla to the rest of the candidates' Rocky Road and the POTUS's Fried Liver and Cupcakes flavor.
And yeah, I would totally rather have Rocky Road than vanilla. And I agree with APN that we had other brands of vanilla that would have served better than Biden - but now we don't. I just can't get past the image of another four years of a completely inedible mess.
There are many similarities between Biden and Trump, beside the shared demographic.
Both have a troubled relationship with the truth.
Both have endured criticism of their children.
Both like to talk tough in the schoolyard bully manner.
Both obtained draft deferments during the Vietnam war period.
Both are known for speaking before thinking.
Both like to extort Ukrainians.
You can’t tell me a debate between the two wouldn’t be a master class in prevarication and obfuscation.
I have heard it reported, and believe, that Sanders told Warren Trump would try to weaponize the fact that she is a woman. That is not the same as saying she cannot win. Before this kerfuffle erupted, years ago, I had read that he urged her to run in 2016, which he reiterated in the debate.
I think Warren is the liar here. When she was talking about this she was touching her nose and face. I don't know if that goes back to childhood tales of Pinocchio or what, but that is body language indicating dishonesty. But still I think she won the debate on style which is what many voters look at.
I have heard it reported, and believe, that Sanders told Warren Trump would try to weaponize the fact that she is a woman. That is not the same as saying she cannot win. Before this kerfuffle erupted, years ago, I had read that he urged her to run in 2016, which he reiterated in the debate.
I think Warren is the liar here. When she was talking about this she was touching her nose and face. I don't know if that goes back to childhood tales of Pinocchio or what, but that is body language indicating dishonesty. But still I think she won the debate on style which is what many voters look at.
I wonder if both could be right due to some ambiguous wording that could be interpreted both ways. I also considered their age and that Bernie forgot what he said or Warren couldn't hear what he said (ha ha). It seems like the media latched onto this like a dog with a bone and it was an over rated as significant.
You can’t tell me a debate between the two wouldn’t be a master class in prevarication and obfuscation. We may get to test that out!
I'm willing to vote Republican IF it comes down to Biden as the Dem nominee, provided that Rep. isn't Trump. Do you find either of the other Rep candidates at all appealing?
I would vote for Weld over Biden.
Do you find either of the other Rep candidates at all appealing?
Only in the negative sense.
Wouldn’t the same polling and fundraising criteria apply to him as any of the others? It would not seem that some party cabal was working to shut him out so much as a relative lack of interest on the part of potential voters and donors.
What I hear is the dems refused to use more current polls, instead using older ones where Yang doesn’t qualify.
I don’t really like not trust either party anymore.
ApatheticNoMore
1-17-20, 2:13am
There is no reason to trust them. Impeachment trials are now, that means the Senators can't campaign. It's being tilted in Bidens favor, by design or not. They are throwing the election, quite probably to Trump.
I don't care about the impeachment I care about getting someone better in there as soon as possible (yea realistically that's Jan).
I don't care about the impeachment I care about getting someone better in there as soon as possible (yea realistically that's Jan).
+1
rosarugosa
1-17-20, 6:48am
I would vote for Weld over Biden.
Same here.
I see Bernie raised four million dollars in the days since the he-said/she-said contretemps.
Given that the two major progressive wing candidates will be stuck in the impeachment rituals for some unspecified length of time, does that give the moderates a great advantage in fundraising and campaigning? I understand the hearings will be mainly in the afternoon, so I suppose they could still get to the hustings if they’re willing to burn a lot of jet fuel. Or try to recruit some proxies.
catherine
1-17-20, 10:43am
I see Bernie raised four million dollars in the days since the he-said/she-said contretemps.
Given that the two major progressive wing candidates will be stuck in the impeachment rituals for some unspecified length of time, does that give the moderates a great advantage in fundraising and campaigning? I understand the hearings will be mainly in the afternoon, so I suppose they could still get to the hustings if they’re willing to burn a lot of jet fuel. Or try to recruit some proxies.
Interesting about the fund-raising.
Regarding the impeachment impact on the senators, I was saying to DH, somewhat facetiously, that the DNC/Pelosi probably submitted the articles of impeachment at this particular time to take the two progressives off the Iowa campaign trail and give the advantage to Biden and Buttegieg.
Interesting about the fund-raising.
Regarding the impeachment impact on the senators, I was saying to DH, somewhat facetiously, that the DNC/Pelosi probably submitted the articles of impeachment at this particular time to take the two progressives off the Iowa campaign trail and give the advantage to Biden and Buttegieg.
That might be.
Bernie held his own while people piled up on Buttigieg last night. The best line was when Klobuchar pointed out while the Senators were dealing with impeachment he was complaining about it and said he'd rather be watching cartoons.
Steyer is going for the minority vote, advocating reparations and attacking Biden who lived up to Trump's nickname for him Sleepy Joe. Buttigieg would not attack Joe or Hunter.
Warren stuck to message and Yang did too but he didn't get a lot of time to speak.
Did he really say that cartoon thing? Gosh, that is unfortunate.
I thought all did better than in prior debates. I thought they were fairly unified and more appealing than in prior debates.
Okay, went and researched, and this is from Breitbart:
Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg admitted that he was exhausted by the impeachment process taking place in Washington, DC, and would rather watch cartoons.
“I don’t know about you, but watching the news right now, watching the impeachment coverage, watching the Senate is exhausting,” he said.
Buttigieg commented on the impeachment process during a town hall (https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/251966242454014/)in Ames, Iowa.
“I live and breathe politics and I find it exhausting, it’s just, it gets you down, and makes you want to watch cartoons instead,” he said.
Oh, that's awful. My 91 and 93 year old parents, one of whom has dementia, watched the impeachment hearings every day.
Good Lord.
I watched most of the debates... I thought Klobuchar was a standout. If I were uncommitted and saw that debate, I'd be all for her, but I'm still for Bernie, and he did very well. Man, I hated seeing Steyer waste time spewing stuff onstage and taking time away from the others. Yang's best line was something about "we're blaming Trump for everything and we shouldn't"--that's a bad paraphrase, but essentially saying, let's put our own house in order.
In general, it felt like all the candidates were like "OK, we've been nice long enough--now the gloves are coming off." They seemed animated and almost angry. It got to be 10:00 and I was too tired to deal with anger, so I went to bed.
I watched parts of the last debate. They are all just fine by me relative to Trump, but Steyer made a most excellent point. With little doubt Trump's strong campaign policy will be, as they would say, it's about the economy stupid. The dems can argue or debate endlessly health care or free college but they need to make good cases for the economy or they've lost a lot of undecideds.
Teacher Terry
2-8-20, 1:13pm
I didn’t watch them. That was really a dumb thing for Mayor Pete to say.
I didn’t watch them. That was really a dumb thing for Mayor Pete to say.
It was honest and accurate though.
I watched the hearings. They were dreadful. Bloviating speeches from both sides, and the end of the Republic. His exact words: “I live and breathe politics and I find it exhausting, it’s just, it gets you down, and makes you want to watch cartoons instead,..."
He's right. It certainly makes you want to do so, or to go play with the dog, or have dinner with friends. Anything for a break from the disaster. He didn't say he did, just that it "makes you want to"... But nobody cares anymore about anything other than viral meme soundbite stuff.
I watched a few Schoolhouse Rock episodes.
iris lilies
2-8-20, 3:38pm
This is a plus in the Mayor Pete column for me.
Teacher Terry
2-8-20, 4:06pm
I agree that the trial was boring. I watched parts of it. Bae, it makes more sense with the complete sentence. Amy only quoted part of it of course.
Any of them are better than what we have now. I loved them all. Each one was 100% better than the state of the union address.
Any of them are better than what we have now. I loved them all. Each one was 100% better than the state of the union address.
I agree, and now we have Trump Unleashed. The election can't come soon enough.
Teacher Terry
2-8-20, 5:15pm
It wasn’t a state of the union address. Just a boring monologue.
Ten minutes into the Nevada debate and it's already a brawl. This may be the best one yet!
catherine
2-19-20, 10:25pm
Ten minutes into the Nevada debate and it's already a brawl. This may be the best one yet!
I know! I feel sorry for the moderators! The gloves are off!!
ETA: to be honest, this is almost painful to watch.. It's like watching your kids fight and you can't get in there to stop them.
I was not dealing with all the anger and switched over to the more tame PBS Nova show on weasels for a while. I think someone posted a piece of paper on Bloomberg's back that said kick me. I've already voted for Buttegieg and he is still the one who makes the most sense to me. I acknowledge the fact that we could do some income leveling with a better tax structure or a different rewards system, but the demonizing of wealth and corporate profits is beyond my intentions. That has seemed to be some of the core discussions.
I've already voted for Buttegieg and he is still the one who makes the most sense to me. I acknowledge the fact that we could do some income leveling with a better tax structure or a different rewards system, but the demonizing of wealth and corporate profits is beyond my intentions. That has seemed to be some of the core discussions.I was favoring Buttegieg on the Democratic side as well but over the last couple of days I've surprised myself by leaning towards Bloomberg as he seems to me to be the most rational of the bunch. I frankly fear for the safety of the top 10% in this country when I listen to Sanders and Warren, I could never support anyone carrying around that much disdain and hate. I like listening to Klobuchar too but she seems nervous all the time which puts me off (once you notice her hair vibrating you can't un-see it), but I'd take her any day over half the others.
I felt both Bloomberg and Sanders took hits, but Bloomberg got the worst of it because he was credibly compared to Trump. Klobuchar did not have a winning performance like she did in the last debate. Buttigieg attacked other people for not being the nice uniter, but attacking is not nice, including his gleeful smirkiness over Klobuchar not knowing the name of the president of Mexico. Warren was very aggressive which may shore up her support as she portrays herself as someone who will fight for you. Biden was largely ignored so didn't do badly until he was heckled. It was definitely the most lively and interesting debate so far. Bloomberg stumbled over his words some - not to the degree Biden has in the past, but I wonder as the field winnows will his age hurt him more.
I didn't watch, but probably will tomorrow since SO tivo'd it while he's off at his bowling league tonight. But, geez, this blow by blow recap... Maybe I should've watched it live!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/19/1920510/-Your-blow-by-blow-Twitter-recap-of-the-ninth-Democratic-debate
Ten minutes into the Nevada debate and it's already a brawl. This may be the best one yet!
It sure looked like "Four More Years" to me.
Pundits keep referring to it as “fiery”, or “a brawl”, but it just looked like tepid high school snark to me. For the brilliant technocrat Bloomberg portrays himself to be, he didn’t seem very well prepared for the predictable attacks.
I felt both Bloomberg and Sanders took hits, but Bloomberg got the worst of it because he was credibly compared to Trump. Klobuchar did not have a winning performance like she did in the last debate. Buttigieg attacked other people for not being the nice uniter, but attacking is not nice, including his gleeful smirkiness over Klobuchar not knowing the name of the president of Mexico. Warren was very aggressive which may shore up her support as she portrays herself as someone who will fight for you. Biden was largely ignored so didn't do badly until he was heckled. It was definitely the most lively and interesting debate so far. Bloomberg stumbled over his words some - not to the degree Biden has in the past, but I wonder as the field winnows will his age hurt him more.
Great recap, but I think Bernie held up. He came under a lot of attack, but that's to be expected given he's the biggest threat to the other candidates at this point.
Sometime I'd like to hear Bernie's rationale behind his rants on big pharma greed. Last night he quote a figure of big pharma profits as something like an outrageous many billions. I wonder where he got that figure. My basic understanding of accounting is that profits are either distributed to shareholders as dividends or reinvested in the company for expansion or R+D. Big pharma companies are publicly owned through the stock market. Those "greedy" profits" would provide value to the company in terms of either income or increases in book values of the company. Which then would be passed on to the stock holders, as in the general stock owning public. If these profits were indeed so huge, people would be flocking to buy stock in big pharma?
No doubt it's not a perfect system. I'm sure there are grossly overpaid CEO likes, just like all big companies. And there are a few pill pushers and bad players. But are the profits really that extraordinary or just a normal return on investment just like any other big corporation?
catherine
2-20-20, 11:17am
Sometime I'd like to hear Bernie's rationale behind his rants on big pharma greed. Last night he quote a figure of big pharma profits as something like an outrageous many billions. I wonder where he got that figure. My basic understanding of accounting is that profits are either distributed to shareholders as dividends or reinvested in the company for expansion or R+D. Big pharma companies are publicly owned through the stock market. Those "greedy" profits" would provide value to the company in terms of either income or increases in book values of the company. Which then would be passed on to the stock holders, as in the general stock owning public. If these profits were indeed so huge, people would be flocking to buy stock in big pharma?
No doubt it's not a perfect system. I'm sure there are grossly overpaid CEO likes, just like all big companies. And there are a few pill pushers and bad players. But are the profits really that extraordinary or just a normal return on investment just like any other big corporation?
Well, even though I'm going to nibble at the hand that feeds me, I'll give you my perspective, FWIW. Here are some of the dynamics behind the "greedy Big Pharma" diatribe:
1) Pharmaceutical companies, unlike almost ALL other industries, can only profit off of their products for a very limited time. Suppose Apple's patent ran out on their iPhone in just 20 years? That's what happens in the drug world. Unless they can extend their patent life somehow (one of the reasons you see some drugs with multiple dosages or modes of delivery), the generics are available and the Pharma company's product is all but dead, especially since it's difficult to get a brand drug approved by insurance companies if there is a generic available.
As a result, they have to shore up their revenues. What would happen if you had to retire from your job in 20 years? You'd be an aggressive saver. So, yes, pharmaceutical companies aggressively price their products. The market research projects I hate the most are price-sensitivity projects, where they push and push the ceiling for what they can ask for and get. So, this aggressive pricing can be interpreted as "greed."
2).Pharmaceuticals have been responsible for over-drugging the public, but also saving the public. They have given us unbelievable high-tech innovations that have increased cancer survival rates incredibly. I worked on one project for a drug that saves babies from certain death by tinkering with their genomes. Even the bread and butter drugs like anti hypertensives have driven down cardiac mortality rates.
But these novel high-tech drugs come with an ENORMOUS price tag, which they feel is justified because they are so high-tech and so effective. But insurance companies are quaking in their boots because in some cases one course of therapy of these drugs is 1M or more. So, charging 1M to cure one person may be seen as "greedy"
BTW, MOST drugs that go to clinical trials, at tremendous expense, fail. I've started researching many drugs very early in the lifecycle--many drugs that never came to fruition, after millions have been spent. That cost is absorbed into the price of the drugs that make it.
OTOH, who is better at selling diseases so they can sell the cure than Big Pharma? Who ever heard of "overactive bladder" or "erectile dysfunction" in the mass market years ago? Of course they existed, but no one named those conditions and then created the cure before. But if you can make someone believe they have something to be treated, and it's a chronic condition, you can make a lot of money.
So, marketing pharmaceuticals the same way that any other company fills an unmet need in the market can be seen as "greedy."
And of course, these huge companies have a lot of shareholders, and they have to please their investors above all. So their mandate to make a profit can be seen as "greedy." Now, are they making "too much" profit? That's the debate. In the system that we have we don't have systems in place to limit the profit of any other corporation, so why should Pfizer be any different?
My opinion is that Big Pharma is just one piece of this whole healthcare albatross we have. Taking away the profit motive would make healthcare much less expensive. People ask, well, won't that reduce innovation? I don't know. I just know that it's the fact that no one person is paying. Pharma can charge big prices because he insurance companies will pay. But not for long...
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
In answer to the question, as much as I love Bernie and hate this healthcare system and wish it were replaced by Medicare for All, I think "greed" is not quite the right word. I'll try to figure out the right word after I finish my next interview which is in 15 minutes..
There seem to be multiple reasons US healthcare is costlier than other countries. Apart from the stock corporate villains, we pay our practitioners more, are less open to long waiting times and euthanasia, and have a more litigious response to medical mistakes. People tend to pick their favorite explanation more to score political points than to truly analyze the problem.
catherine
2-20-20, 11:40am
There seem to be multiple reasons US healthcare is costlier than other countries. Apart from the stock corporate villains, we pay our practitioners more, are less open to long waiting times and euthanasia, and have a more litigious response to medical mistakes. People tend to pick their favorite explanation more to score political points than to truly analyze the problem.
My feeling is it's the bloated system. I make more than my primary care doctor, and I only have a B.A. I think the "long waiting times" is a myth. We do have a litigious response to medical mistakes, but I feel that's a small piece of the puzzle. The problem is systemic. Medicare for All would solve so many of these problems.
As someone who is in the middle of figuring out a health diagnosis, I would say that is all way too complicated., ie bloated. I get the sense that potential litigation is the reason behind too many costly tests and procedures.
iris lilies
2-20-20, 11:55am
In Hermann, I am going to a direct primary care physician. So far it is cheaper than going to my vet for an office visit, and my vet is not an expensive veterinarian.
and simple, Oy vey!
I drive up to her little store front office and park right in front. No meters, no big garage, no traversing multiple storied building to find her office, the “doctor is in “sign hangs on the door. That is cute.
She wanted me to get a mammogram ASAP due to a lump that was a cyst but she wanted confirmation. Called the radiology dept at the hospital up the hill, they got me in within 15 minutes. It was a five minute drive. I parked right in front of the building and walked in.
The huge hospital complexes and palaces of sickness in my city overwhelm me.
I do realize that someday I will have to traverse that world, and I appreciate that St. Louis has all kinds of great specialists, but so far I don’t want to touch that if I can help it
I understand the many legitimate reasons why medications provided by big pharma are expensive and add to our health care costs. Without more information, I don't see eye to eye with Bernie's one basket fits all reasoning that it's greedy big pharma taking excessive profits, any more than other bloated bureaucratic big business tries to make a fair return on investment. I'm sure he has more to it, but it needs a better cause and effect analysis. Something really needs fixing.
When I get statements for my medical needs there is a list of charges sent to the insurance provider, then the charges allowed that the insurer will pay. The second list is invariably much smaller. So, the uninsured, and often those least able to pay, can have a much higher medical expense for the same procedures. I can see some version of medicare for all leveling the playing field and having more control or limiting allowed medical expenses. However, most people I know who are on senior medicare also have some form of supplemental insurance through a private insurer, often at little or no cost. If I could pretend to be an expert, I'd say that there are just too many tiers of bureaucratic hurdles that could somehow be streamlined or consolidated. There is always the option of nationalizing healthcare.
It's a complicated problem and maybe by drilling down into each of the candidates proposals there are more comprehensive solutions. But I think when Bernie attributes this to the broad categories of greedy big pharma or greedy big corporations in general is a gross oversimplification to create some sort of basic common enemy people can try to rally against. That is one reason why I didn't vote for him. (Plus he keeps yelling at me).
Who ever gets chosen will be better than Donald.
" However, most people I know who are on senior medicare also have some form of supplemental insurance through a private insurer, often at little or no cost."
??? How is this happening? They look pretty costly to me, when I am hunting for them for next year.
" However, most people I know who are on senior medicare also have some form of supplemental insurance through a private insurer, often at little or no cost."
??? How is this happening? They look pretty costly to me, when I am hunting for them for next year.
Compared to what I was paying in the private sector (1600/month), I'm thrilled with Medicare. We have Supplemental Plan F (which is being phased out apparently) which covers so much. We have a very small deductible and hardly ever have copayments. It picks up everything Medicare B doesn't.
If you want details on what we're paying, PM me.
Teacher Terry
2-20-20, 1:53pm
It depends on where you live. My sister pays 600/month for herself in Chicago.
It depends on where you live. My sister pays 600/month for herself in Chicago.
Yeah, that as kind of what I was seeing.
Catherine, will pm you. I saw about the best most comprehensive plan going away this year.
The low or no cost supplemental plans are generally "Medicare Advantage" plans. The often have small co-pays, require a primary care physician referrals to see other doctors, and higher costs for out of network providers. Don't take my word for it, it's complicated. I understand both UnitedHealthcare and Kaiser are reliable providers that offer Medicare Advantage plans.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071014/medigap-vs-medicare-advantage-which-better.asp
I learned a lot about Medicare Advantage plans in dealing with my parents, rehab, hospitalization, and nursing home care. They are great until you need rehab and then they are horrendous. The social worker at the nursing home went on and on about horrible experiences with them--like the guy who had both legs amputated and they would not pay for rehab, sent him home after 3 days. She said original Medicare would have paid for rehab facility.
They would not pay for any rehab facility for my mom, who had a gangrenous leg ulcer and advanced dementia and no nearby family to care for her.
My parents had Humana and they were absolutely horrid.
My parents had Humana and they were absolutely horrid.
Did they have a medigap policy or a medicare advantage? I imagine that they offer both.
Not all Medicare Advantage plans are the same. I'd offer as a suggestion the book, Medicare for Dummies which I've browsed through or the medicare.gov "plan finder."
"Medicare Advantage plans are required to provide the same benefits as Original Medicare."
https://www.medicareadvantage.com/common-questions/how-long-does-medicare-pay-for-rehab
Did they have a medigap policy or a medicare advantage? I imagine that they offer both.
Not all Medicare Advantage plans are the same. I'd offer as a suggestion the book, Medicare for Dummies which I've browsed through or the medicare.gov "plan finder."
"Medicare Advantage plans are required to provide the same benefits as Original Medicare."
https://www.medicareadvantage.com/common-questions/how-long-does-medicare-pay-for-rehab
They had Humana advantage. The social worker said the are notorious for denying care thatorigal approves.
Tybee, you might also consider if you doctors of choice will accept Medicare patients. The doctor I've used for years won't accept medicare patients but will take patients with advantage plans. Also, some of my friends who have gone on medicare have had trouble finding good doctors that will take medicare patients, but will take advantage patients. It's a complicated choice and there isn't one right plan for everyone.
iris lilies
2-20-20, 3:24pm
But you have to have a supplemental plan, right? To protect your assets. Just like with old health insurance before you qualify for Medicare—even if you dont use health care services you need insurance for the catastrophic thing that wipes out your assets.
[
But you have to have a supplemental,plan, right? To protect your assets. Just like with old health insurance before you qualify for Medicate—even if you dont use health care services you meed insurance for the catastrophic thing that wipes out your assets.
That's my take. Everyone should have either an Advantage plan or Medigap, plus whatever it is people should make sure they have some sort of drug coverage. I recall there is a penalty for signing up for drug coverage after the initial enrollment. It's too bad it so complicated.
iris lilies
2-20-20, 4:02pm
[
That's my take. Everyone should have either an Advantage plan or Medigap, plus whatever it is people should make sure they have some sort of drug coverage. I recall there is a penalty for signing up for drug coverage after the initial enrollment. It's too bad it so complicated.
oh right—that’s where the
lifetime penalty resides. I was trying to remember where that was.
The penalty is an entirely arbitrary thing.
Nanny G—she giveth and she taketh away.
Teacher Terry
2-20-20, 4:10pm
People locally said no one will take Medicare for reasons they went to advantage plans and we have found that not to be true. Once you go on a advantage plan you can’t go back unless you can pass medical underwriting. The reason the advantage plans are cheap or free is because if you need a lifesaving procedure or drug they can require you to under go a step plan that’s cheaper and by the time you get to the step you need you will probably be dead so they saved money.
The reason the advantage plans are cheap or free is because if you need a lifesaving procedure or drug they can require you to under go a step plan that’s cheaper and by the time you get to the step you need you will probably be dead so they saved money.
I'm not sure I understand. Is it that if you need some sort of expensive procedure an Advantage plan provider can arbitrarily change your coverage to avoid expenses.
I'm not sure I understand. Is it that if you need some sort of expensive procedure an Advantage plan provider can arbitrarily change your coverage to avoid expenses.
Rogar, in my experience with my parents, every treatment is run by them for approval, and they tend not to approve.
Original medicare does not require the same approvals.
Teacher Terry
2-20-20, 5:17pm
Roger, yes Tybee is right.
Rogar, in my experience with my parents, every treatment is run by them for approval, and they tend not to approve.
Original medicare does not require the same approvals.
Interesting point. It gets complicated.
My parents have significant assets and they chose regular Medicare with no supplemental. They choose to pay cash for their prescriptions which they recognize is a risk they’re willing to tolerate. My dad had a couple of cardiac events with surgery and his out-of-pocket cost was only a few thousand dollars. The hospitals can only bill you according to the Medicare rates and he’s convinced that his assets are not at risk. He thinks the supplemental plans are a big rip-off.
The sad thing is that I worked in healthcare for over 20 years and it still is all a big mystery to me. It’s way too convoluted and confusing no matter what plan you choose.
When I of average intelligence spent hours trying to figure out all the various Advantage plans with Medicare...I can only imagine how complicated Medicare for All would be. I have paid for Medigap through my last employer and I am told that is the best to use with Medicare. The Advantage plans sound good up front but not so great when calamity strikes. DH spent literally hours trying to get Part D drug coverage to avoid the penalties and it is still all screwed up. They deducted from his SS without his permission, etc...It is all way too complicated.
My parents have significant assets and they chose regular Medicare with no supplemental. They choose to pay cash for their prescriptions which they recognize is a risk they’re willing to tolerate. My dad had a couple of cardiac events with surgery and his out-of-pocket cost was only a few thousand dollars. The hospitals can only bill you according to the Medicare rates and he’s convinced that his assets are not at risk. He thinks the supplemental plans are a big rip-off.
That's a thought worth entertaining. I think I'd at least want the drug insurance part, but when you consider the monthly charges for some of the more expensive Medigap plans over the years of a life expectancy, a person could even come out ahead if they were in average health.
When I of average intelligence spent hours trying to figure out all the various Advantage plans with Medicare...I can only imagine how complicated Medicare for All would be. I have paid for Medigap through my last employer and I am told that is the best to use with Medicare. The Advantage plans sound good up front but not so great when calamity strikes. DH spent literally hours trying to get Part D drug coverage to avoid the penalties and it is still all screwed up. They deducted from his SS without his permission, etc...It is all way too complicated.
If I were to make a guess how things would play out if Medicare for all becomes a reality (not that I expect that to happen in my lifetime (and I'm not old unless 52 is the new 72...)) I suspect that we'll end up with a system like we have now, with the difference being that government insurance will provide a baseline and most people's employer will still provide insurance. It would just be supplemental at that point instead of the whole deal, but it would still be provided by them. Depending on the size of one's employer there may be choices but the decision of what insurance would still be mostly out of our individual hands. People who currently buy their own ACA plans would, of course, have a much bigger decision to make at that point.
Bernie's plan (he wrote the damn bill) is improved Medicare for all, with more coverage. Supplemental plans might not be needed. For instance, he said at one of the debates out of pocket expenses for drugs would be capped at something like $200. If that's the case would Part D even be needed?
I think simplifying Medicare and then gradually lowering the eligibility age is a good way to phase in the program. As older on average sicker people enroll it will lower costs for private plans. As older sicker people just working for the insurance are able to retire earlier it will open up jobs for younger people.
Bernie's plan (he wrote the damn bill) is improved Medicare for all, with more coverage. Supplemental plans might not be needed. For instance, he said at one of the debates out of pocket expenses for drugs would be capped at something like $200. If that's the case would Part D even be needed?
I think simplifying Medicare and then gradually lowering the eligibility age is a good way to phase in the program. As older on average sicker people enroll it will lower costs for private plans. As older sicker people just working for the insurance are able to retire earlier it will open up jobs for younger people.
Yes, well said. That's how easy it can be, and it would cut out at least 2 levels of middlemen and give negotiating power over drugs and hospitals to a central body. CMS functions quite well, IMO.
You have to separate healthcare from employers in order to get anywhere with this problem.
Yppej, good point about low deductibles and Part D.
catherine
2-21-20, 10:31am
You have to separate healthcare from employers in order to get anywhere with this problem.
Yppej, good point about low deductibles and Part D.
Absolutely! That's good for the employers, too! They don't have to pay for their employees' healthcare, which frees up money for other business needs. Also, their employees that want to do something on their own, like their own business, but who are wearing their employers' golden handcuffs because they need the healthcare insurance, are free to follow their dreams.
Makes sense to me.
One of the issues for the Nevada caucuses is that some union members may object to having their current negotiated health benefits eliminated for a mandatory Medicare system. I’ve heard that mentioned as a reason for the culinary union’s reluctance to make an endorsement.
catherine
2-21-20, 11:27am
One of the issues for the Nevada caucuses is that some union members may object to having their current negotiated health benefits eliminated for a mandatory Medicare system. I’ve heard that mentioned as a reason for the culinary union’s reluctance to make an endorsement.
I will never believe that Bernie Sanders would ever put working class people in a position where they're worse off. He said as much at the debates, and I believe him.
I will never believe that Bernie Sanders would ever put working class people in a position where they're worse off. He said as much at the debates, and I believe him.
It would appear the people who run the culinary union are less credulous than you on that point. They may not want their eggs broken to make someone else’s omelette.
Winners and losers among “working people” would be pretty much inevitable with such a change, absent making it as generous as the most generous employer or union plan.
One of the issues for the Nevada caucuses is that some union members may object to having their current negotiated health benefits eliminated for a mandatory Medicare system. I’ve heard that mentioned as a reason for the culinary union’s reluctance to make an endorsement.
My recollections from the debates were that this came up a few times. The general response, at least as I recall, is that there will be a few sacrifices to be made for the good of all. Could be off a little on that.
I will never believe that Bernie Sanders would ever put working class people in a position where they're worse off. He said as much at the debates, and I believe him.
I agree with you. However, it's quite likely that the union, when negotiating for their excellent healthplan, gave up other benefits or higher wages in order to get the healthplan they have. SO does HR for a large hotel company and the unions at his hotels have all negotiated what would to the rest of us be absurd healthplans ($5 copay for ER visits for example). But to get those healthplans they have given up a lot of other things that they might otherwise have gotten instead.
ApatheticNoMore
2-21-20, 12:56pm
Winners and losers among “working people” would be pretty much inevitable with such a change, absent making it as generous as the most generous employer or union plan.
those working people (although I think it is just their leaders who don't always represent the rank and file) would then be ridiculous, if they always expect to work the same job with the same benefits? In the year 2020? Or what did those rip van winkles think it was 1950 or something where they would work for the same employer for 40 years and retire with a pension and a ring? And then what about when the next recession comes ... and the layoffs come in mass.
And even if they win the life lottery and that never happens, they don't know others without good healthcare options? Their friends and family?
those working people (although I think it is just their leaders who don't always represent the rank and file) would then be ridiculous, if they always expect to work the same job with the same benefits? In the year 2020? Or what did those rip van winkles think it was 1950 or something where they would work for the same employer for 40 years and retire with a pension and a ring? And then what about when the next recession comes ...
Fortunately we have a corps of volunteers to explain our real interests to us, and will be happy to enforce their superior understanding on us should we persist in our foolishness
I will never believe that Bernie Sanders would ever put working class people in a position where they're worse off. He said as much at the debates, and I believe him.But isn't socialism designed to share the suffering over a larger footprint?
But isn't socialism designed to share the suffering over a larger footprint?
Depends on what you call suffering. If you're talking about the suffering of one of my latest interviewees, who has diabetes and her HbA1c numbers were really going down due to her medication, but when I asked her why they skyrocketed at a certain point lately she said it was because she couldn't afford her medication, and now she's suffering from some of the horrible consequences of diabetes.
As Bernie has said, if you add up all the money people spend on their insurance, deductibles (which are climbing higher and higher), and copays, and then look at how much taxes will be raised to cover Medicare for All, I believe for most individuals it would be at least a wash. And if you consider it "suffering" to be in a tax bracket that can easily afford to have your taxes raised a small amount to cover some of the benefits all the other developed countries in the world seem to enjoy, well, I'll take that kind of suffering over the suffering of my interviewee any day.
Teacher Terry
2-21-20, 4:58pm
Young people with Type 1 diabetes are dying because they cannot afford their insulin. I pay taxes and will gladly pay more to stop that.
From this article in the NYTimes today (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/opinion/healthcare-industry-medicare.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article), talking about one huge reason our system is bloated:
As a matter of ethics and equality, this should be O.K.; sticking with a system that is the source of so much death, debt and financial ruin just because you like your doctor or your insurance company or your medical-billing job is not really a defensible position.
On the other hand, in America, “I’ve got mine and I don’t want to lose it” is always pretty good politics.
The jobs argument goes like this: There’s a lot of fat in the American health care industry, and any effort to transform it into a simpler system in which everyone is covered would necessarily eliminate layers of bureaucracy and likely reduce overhead costs. Every year Americans collectively pay about $500 billion in administrative costs for health care — that is, for things like billing and insurance overhead, not for actual medical care.
These costs are significantly higher than in most other wealthy countries. One study on health care data from 1999 showed that each American paid about $1,059 per year just in overhead costs for health care; in Canada, the per capita cost was $307. Those figures are likely much higher today.
The thrust of this article is that there is an argument that streamlining the healthcare system will lose jobs. This is why we are fighting to save jobs for people who work in coal mines, people who own gas stations, and all other industries that are going to be as relevant as the typewriter very soon. Is that a good enough reason to hold on to a ridiculously inefficient system?
I agree with you. However, it's quite likely that the union, when negotiating for their excellent healthplan, gave up other benefits or higher wages in order to get the healthplan they have. SO does HR for a large hotel company and the unions at his hotels have all negotiated what would to the rest of us be absurd healthplans ($5 copay for ER visits for example). But to get those healthplans they have given up a lot of other things that they might otherwise have gotten instead.
Exactly. And union contracts are for a few years, and it would take a few years to phase in Medicare for All. When the contract is up for renewal go for higher pay or more vacation time or something else instead.
Exactly. And union contracts are for a few years, and it would take a few years to phase in Medicare for All. When the contract is up for renewal go for higher pay or more vacation time or something else instead.
The issue for the union, though, is not that they gave up one raise one time. It’s that they have given up something(s) every three or four years at the contract renewal to keep the healthcare plan. It’s almost a certainty that at each renewal negotiation management’s starting ‘ask’ includes revisions to the health plan to reduce its cost.
Some proposals include a punitive “Cadillac tax” to reduce the value of more generous plans and make a government option more attractive. Others include eliminating the deductibility of employer paid premiums for the same reason. Single payer eliminates the differences by simple brute force.
Given the broad spectrum of plans right now, however, it’s difficult to believe a single payer system wouldn’t have disparate impacts on working people. Making a blanket statement to the contrary seems disingenuous to me.
There is already a Cadillac plan tax on the books scheduled to go into effect in 2022.
There is already a Cadillac plan tax on the books scheduled to go into effect in 2022.
I thought it was repealed last summer.
The loser in Nevada - The Culinary Union. The winner - Medicare for All, which the majority of union members supported, both because they know if they lose their jobs there goes their great coverage, and because they are concerned about family members who don't have good insurance. It is nice to see some compassion from voters. All I hear from Trump voters IRL is how good their 401K's are doing and how much they dislike and fear immigrants.
frugal-one
2-23-20, 7:20am
Disheartening to say the least.... top contenders so far ... a dictator-wanna-be and a socialist. A no-win situation!
Disheartening to say the least.... top contenders so far ... a dictator-wanna-be and a socialist. A no-win situation!
Not no-win for everybody.
People in countries like Denmark are happier on average than Americans. Socialism is only a disaster if you're in the top 1%. Look at Sweden - from Ikea to Subaru there are many private businesses. Democratic socialism is not the same as communism. There is a lot of fearmongering and outright lies. For instance, in the debate Bloomberg said we and other countries tried communism. The US never tried communism and never will.
People in countries like Denmark are happier on average than Americans. Socialism is only a disaster if you're in the top 1%. Look at Sweden - from Ikea to Subaru there are many private businesses. Democratic socialism is not the same as communism. There is a lot of fearmongering and outright lies. For instance, in the debate Bloomberg said we and other countries tried communism. The US never tried communism and never will.
+1
I also agree about the fearmongering. It is being done with Bernie, with people attempting to smear him with "socialism." It's funny to me, since I remember people smearing Kennedy for being Catholic, saying, will he take his orders from the pope? (Which is rather amazing, looking back, since I was only four in 1960. But I remember hearing people say that and asking my mother why it was bad to be Catholic, and why would he take his orders from the pope.)
People in countries like Denmark are happier on average than Americans. Socialism is only a disaster if you're in the top 1%. Look at Sweden - from Ikea to Subaru there are many private businesses. Democratic socialism is not the same as communism. There is a lot of fearmongering and outright lies. For instance, in the debate Bloomberg said we and other countries tried communism. The US never tried communism and never will.
Paul Krugman recently went to great lengths to persuade us that Bernie’s not really a socialist. I think we will see a lot of arguments over the definition of that word. His future opposition will no doubt resurrect some of his expressions of admiration for Venezuela.
Paul Krugman recently went to great lengths to persuade us that Bernie’s not really a socialist. I think we will see a lot of arguments over the definition of that word. His future opposition will no doubt resurrect some of his expressions of admiration for Venezuela.
I agree that his opponents are going to try to distort Bernie's democratic socialism. His success will depend on his ability to define his brand of "socialism" as the kind happy Scandinavian countries, and getting out the Democratic vote--and he has a lot of passionate young voters with a lot of energy on his side. The fearmongers may be silenced by them a the ballot box.
Another thing that struck me about Nevada is Sanders's strong support among Latinos. O'Rourke, Booker, and Buttigieg all engaged in Hispandering, speaking stilted Spanish at events and in debates. (Castro really does know the language.) But it didn't get them anywhere.
I agree that his opponents are going to try to distort Bernie's democratic socialism. His success will depend on his ability to define his brand of "socialism" as the kind happy Scandinavian countries, and getting out the Democratic vote--and he has a lot of passionate young voters with a lot of energy on his side. The fearmongers may be silenced by them a the ballot box.
I think his opposition will also argue that Bernie’s vision of the happy Nordic countries is about as accurate as “Frozen”.
As long as the Senate remains Republican most of Bernie's proposals are a long way off if at all. It's like how Donald was going to deport all the illegals and get rid of Obama Care.
iris lilies
2-23-20, 11:03am
As long as the Senate remains Republican most of Bernie's proposals are a long way off if at all. It's like how Donald was going to deport all the illegals and get rid of Obama Care.
Stasis is good.
Stasis is good.
Unless you are the asthmatic or the diabetic who can't afford to buy their prescribed medicine.
ApatheticNoMore
2-23-20, 12:55pm
FDR was called a socialist too.
FDR was called a socialist too.
But he didn't advertise himself as such. Bernie's brand is more honest, he's simply tempering his ideology by prefacing his Socialism with Democratic.
ApatheticNoMore
2-23-20, 1:46pm
As long as the Senate remains Republican most of Bernie's proposals are a long way off if at all. It's like how Donald was going to deport all the illegals and get rid of Obama Care.
that applies to any Dem proposals from any candidate that needs congress.
Although Trump DID do his damage to Obamacare, it's why rates of uninsured are scheduled to rise. So big shiny "accomplishments" (in quotes for Trump at any rate, because pure destruction is not much of an accomplishment, though he would brag) may not always to be had depending on circumstances. But Presidential policy absolutely does affect things.
Although Trump DID do his damage to Obamacare, it's why rates of uninsured are scheduled to rise. So big shiny "accomplishments" (in quotes for Trump at any rate, because pure destruction is not much of an accomplishment, though he would brag) may not always to be had depending on circumstances. But Presidential policy absolutely does affect things.It seems that in this country we have an all-time high amount of people wishing the government to take care of their needs. I wonder if we'll recognize the point where we've gone too far, or more importantly, will we be able to do anything about it?
Teacher Terry
2-23-20, 2:08pm
Bernie is hugely popular here and has a big organized base of volunteers. Plus since more educated people have moved in the state has turned from red to blue. The rural areas are still red.
The reason demand is high for public health care is epic failure by the private sector. There is insufficient competition, little price transparency, little to no consumer choice, and no cost containment. Ditto with internet service providers except on transparency, but that's not a matter of life and death.
iris lilies
2-23-20, 6:33pm
Unless you are the asthmatic or the diabetic who can't afford to buy their prescribed medicine.
But it is a good idea to look to the government to solve your problem? I dont think so.
But it is a good idea to look to the government to solve your problem? I dont think so.
What would you suggest IL? Should all catastrophic care in this country that people can't afford be handled through GoFundMe? Beggars on the streets?
Teacher Terry
2-23-20, 7:43pm
Young diabetics are dying when the founders of insulin didn’t patent it so it would be cheap for everyone. Now pharmacology companies are getting rich while people are dying. How can anyone think that’s acceptable.
Young diabetics are dying when the founders of insulin didn’t patent it so it would be cheap for everyone. Now pharmacology companies are getting rich while people are dying. How can anyone think that’s acceptable.
Gee, and here I thought laissez-faire capitalism would regulate itself. /sarcasm
Ready the tumbrels. lads!
Now pharmacology companies are getting rich while people are dying. How can anyone think that’s acceptable.Is that like saying we have well off people in expensive homes with extra bedrooms while homeless people are freezing to death on the streets?
If that's the case, you may be happy to know the governor of California has suggested doctors prescribe housing for homeless people, I'm assuming on someone else's dime. I'm not sure how that would work but if we held ourselves to the same standard some of us do to business, I'm sure we could fix the homeless problem overnight.
ApatheticNoMore
2-23-20, 9:41pm
If that's the case, you may be happy to know the governor of California has suggested doctors prescribe housing for homeless people, I'm assuming on someone else's dime.
But even the health insurance companies themselves are prioritizing addressing homelessness at this point. For a lot of reasons, and not probably primarily PR, although sure it's good PR too, but it's a healthcare cost driver, it's a public health issue etc. etc..
Teacher Terry
2-23-20, 10:02pm
No it’s not the same Alan. If the inventors wanted it cheap and didn’t patent it companies should not be able to circumvent that and kill people for profit. That’s very different than taking homeless in your house. I often think you come up with silly comparisons on purpose.
I often think you come up with silly comparisons on purpose.
Just ones to make you think. I've found that the ones that hit closest to home are often considered my silliest.
It’ll be interesting to see what the conservatives here offer up as a solution to people dying because they can’t afford easily available medicines that doesn’t involve government.
And equally interesting when they get pissed when people point out that it’s kind of heartless that they are fine with the fact that in the richest nation in the world people are fine with others dying of easily treatable diseases.
It’ll be interesting to see what the conservatives here offer up as a solution to people dying because they can’t afford easily available medicines that doesn’t involve government.
And equally interesting when they get pissed when people point out that it’s kind of heartless that they are fine with the fact that in the richest nation in the world people are fine with others dying of easily treatable diseases.
I think they only get pissed when you assume they're fine with it. I've offered a solution, hold ourselves to the same standard we hold evil rich corporations. If government gets involved it'll cost you the same as donating a couple prescriptions to a random diabetic but you get the added benefit of telling us all how generous you are. I'd think that would be a no-brainer for lots of folks. Just a thought.
frugal-one
2-24-20, 10:02am
It’ll be interesting to see what the conservatives here offer up as a solution to people dying because they can’t afford easily available medicines that doesn’t involve government.
And equally interesting when they get pissed when people point out that it’s kind of heartless that they are fine with the fact that in the richest nation in the world people are fine with others dying of easily treatable diseases.
Went to Mexico recently where many US citizens were buying AFFORDABLE drugs (including us). Totally outrageous that we don’t have the same.
iris lilies
2-24-20, 10:06am
What would you suggest IL? Should all catastrophic care in this country that people can't afford be handled through GoFundMe? Beggars on the streets?
You know, we DO pay taxes for catastrophic health care for others. It exists.
frugal-one
2-24-20, 10:06am
I also agree about the fearmongering. It is being done with Bernie, with people attempting to smear him with "socialism." It's funny to me, since I remember people smearing Kennedy for being Catholic, saying, will he take his orders from the pope? (Which is rather amazing, looking back, since I was only four in 1960. But I remember hearing people say that and asking my mother why it was bad to be Catholic, and why would he take his orders from the pope.)
The fisticuffs will be coming off and show Sander’s “brand” of socialism..... previously praising Castro, etc.
When did our politics become so pathological that anyone who disagrees on a particular policy option must be condemned as heartless? Why are so many of us unable to separate the personal from the political? If I think Bernie Sanders espouses some terrible ideas do I need to call him a terrible person?
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-20, 1:21pm
When did our politics become so pathological that anyone who disagrees on a particular policy option must be condemned as heartless? Why are so many of us unable to separate the personal from the political?
Well if you are sick and getting sicker due to lack of diabetes medicine is it personal at that point. So separating it is kind of a check your privilege thing, are you privileged enough to separate it and to what degree (because there are matters of degree).
Of course everything has become pretty interconnected at this point so there is no absolute separation at this point, maybe more so once (anyone who sees homeless people about could get sick from say an epidemic that starts with the homeless for instance).
Teacher Terry
2-24-20, 1:56pm
I have decent HI and can afford my medications. However, every time I read about a young person dying from not being able to afford their insulin I feel awful. Type one diabetes is often a childhood disease. I think everyone should be concerned.
I thought this was an interesting article about the opposition to the NHS in England when it came in:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-birth-of-the-nhs-856091.html
I think it's good to expand our thinking and look at what other countries have done to improve the everyday lives of their citizens. It's also good to look at the history of such social change.
As far as heartlessness goes, I think that's a false dichotomy. I think we can do better as a nation, working together, the way we have done since our inception. We need to share our thoughts, our knowledge, and our best ideas, and we need everyone.
iris lilies
2-24-20, 5:57pm
Is that like saying we have well off people in expensive homes with extra bedrooms while homeless people are freezing to death on the streets?
If that's the case, you may be happy to know the governor of California has suggested doctors prescribe housing for homeless people, I'm assuming on someone else's dime. I'm not sure how that would work but if we held ourselves to the same standard some of us do to business, I'm sure we could fix the homeless problem overnight.
Don’t you just love what they come up with in the peoples Republic of California?
Actually I do think that social experiment would be very interesting as long as federal tax payers don’t have to pay for it in any way shape or form
iris lilies
2-24-20, 6:11pm
The fisticuffs will be coming off and show Sander’s “brand” of socialism..... previously praising Castro, etc.
Do you think there something wrong with praising Castro? Don’t they have universal healthcare in Cuba? Isn’t that a wonderful thing?
frugal-one
2-24-20, 6:19pm
Do you think there something wrong with praising Castro? Don’t they have universal healthcare in Cuba? Isn’t that a wonderful thing?
Seriously? Here is what Rubio had to say about him.
the https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/11/rubio-calls-fidel-castro-evil-murderous-dictator-107616
According to our fearless leader Castro is not the only evil, murderous person because Ted Cruz's father killed JFK.
I'll take "Crazy Bernie" over the real lunatic every day.
I'll take "Crazy Bernie" over the real lunatic every day.
Me too. Make that a double.
iris lilies
2-24-20, 8:09pm
According to our fearless leader Castro is not the only evil, murderous person because Ted Cruz's father killed JFK.
I'll take "Crazy Bernie" over the real lunatic every day.
ok that made me laugh!
ok that made me laugh!
Made me laugh, too.
I at least read wiki on Cuba. Their health and education systems looked pretty good to me, at least for a third world country subject to sanctions.
Conservative Utah decided to house their homeless population a few years ago. It saved them so much money as compared with paying for frequent hospital visits, that it more than paid for itself. There is a conservative argument for providing the basics for one’s population.
I think they only get pissed when you assume they're fine with it. I've offered a solution, hold ourselves to the same standard we hold evil rich corporations. If government gets involved it'll cost you the same as donating a couple prescriptions to a random diabetic but you get the added benefit of telling us all how generous you are. I'd think that would be a no-brainer for lots of folks. Just a thought.
Apparently I've missed your solution. Perhaps you could go into more detail? THe only solution I"ve seen from republicans over the last however many years has been to cancel the ACA. That solution doesn't seem to improve the ability of people with diabetes or any other disease to get medicine at a more affordable price. If I"m wrong on that I'd love to hear about it.
Castro may have been a dictator, but he was one who actually improved the lives of most of his people. Our continuing need to punish Cuba just makes us look petty--especially when we're sucking up to the likes of Putin and the House of Saud--who regularly assassinate their opponents. Bernie has the courage to be honest.
Castro may have been a dictator, but he was one who actually improved the lives of most of his people.
All those people risking their lives to get away probably just needed someone to explain their best interests to them.
All those people risking their lives to get away probably just needed someone to explain their best interests to them.
Castro was terrible.
Which makes it even stranger that Cuba has affordable medications and we do not.
What do you propose we Americans do to fix a broken system?
iris lilies
2-25-20, 11:54am
Castro was terrible.
Which makes it even stranger that Cuba has affordable medications and we do not.
What do you propose we Americans do to fix a broken system?
I don’t accept your premise that it is broken.That is overstatement.
Okay, I actually was going to add, "if you think it is broken" so your point is well taken, and I can see why you are labeling it overstatement.
Do you feel that the current state of affairs represents a problem that we as Americans should come together to solve?
Castro may have been a dictator, but he was one who actually improved the lives of most of his people. Our continuing need to punish Cuba just makes us look petty--especially when we're sucking up to the likes of Putin and the House of Saud--who regularly assassinate their opponents. Bernie has the courage to be honest.
Indeed. I find it hard for any conservatives, or at least Trumpers, to get down on Bernie when there is a bromance between Donald and Putin. For that matter speaking of oppressive Communist regimes it doesn't seem like China has any stellar humanitarian record, but they do make cheap t-shirts and big screen TVs.
I don't think it's broken--it works perfectly for those who see it as an investment opportunity.
The rest of us, not so much.
Indeed. I find it hard for any conservatives, or at least Trumpers, to get down on Bernie when there is a bromance between Donald and Putin. For that matter speaking of oppressive Communist regimes it doesn't seem like China has any stellar humanitarian record, but they do make cheap t-shirts and big screen TVs.
Yes--we cozy up to the vilest of tyrants when it suits our interests. Cuba just doesn't have the means to bribe us into quiescence.
What do you propose we Americans do to fix a broken system?Oh the system isn't broken yet. Wait until there's no nation left on earth where a profit can be made on medications and watch them dry up. That's when the system that caused it will be broken.
I worked in pharma for the last 12 years of my working life. We made sterile injectables, although no insulin but it too is a sterile injectable, and the cost of years of development and testing, engineering, validation, quality control, chemistry, microbiology and a host of specific subject matter experts to meet the requirements of the FDA and similar organizations in other countries made profitability hit or miss without government controls on pricing. I suspect lots of drugs will go away once that option disappears.
So Alan, do you feel that there is a problem here that Americans need to come together to work on for the benefit for all, or do you feel that the current system is working and should not be tampered with?
Not trying to put you into an either or here, just not quite understanding what you are saying.
I suspect a huge percentage of pharmaceuticals are unnecessary--most of them barely make the cut being more effective than placebos. And they all have side effects.
Pharma pays about 60% of costs of development; their advertising budget is larger, for many companies, than their R&D. (Lord, save us from Pharma ads.)
Without the profit motive, we'd have lots fewer problems of this type, I'm guessing.
So Alan, do you feel that there is a problem here that Americans need to come together to work on for the benefit for all, or do you feel that the current system is working and should not be tampered with?
Not trying to put you into an either or here, just not quite understanding what you are saying.
I guess I'm saying that the US health care system works wonderfully for the vast majority of Americans and I don't think that vast majority are going to be pleased to be moved into a government system the likes of which has become popular with many.
This is our political season and I'm dismayed at the candidates who propagandize daily to support a base who believes that pharma kills people or that Republicans gleefully want people to die. I think it's dangerous to hear otherwise rational people repeat such nonsense in public. Those candidates and their followers will turn an otherwise mostly excellent system into a mostly mediocre one, lacking innovation and expertise.
In the case of pharma, this country is currently providing the incentive for manufacturers to supply the rest of the world with life enhancing/saving medications as other countries have "improved" their system in the manner some would like to see here. I'd hate to lose that innovation and availability we currently enjoy and wish others considered the long term effects of their immediate desires before doing something foolish.
I guess I'm saying that the US health care system works wonderfully for the vast majority of Americans and I don't think that vast majority are going to be pleased to be moved into a government system the likes of which has become popular with many.
...
That hasn't been my experience at all. Fifty years ago, I might have agreed with you.
People are paying exorbitant monthly fees, fighting with rapacious insurance companies for coverage, losing their life savings and even their homes, dealing with recalcitrant bureaucracies requiring reams of confusing paperwork, and often getting half-assed care for their trouble.
ApatheticNoMore
2-25-20, 1:38pm
And even if the care was great (and that has not been my experience, but I haven't been seriously sick), what use is great care you have a good chance of not having and being able to make use of when you are actually sick?
My real feelings about the healthcare system are: whatever you do don't get sick, but of course that's far less under our control than all that. People get sick.
And people here are supposed to do without medical care because "it benefits the rest of the world", well good luck selling that one politically, talk about a platform that would never get one elected. Running on: "MAKE THE REST OF THE WORLD GREAT AGAIN (and who cares about people in this country)".
I remember one time when I was severely burnt out and exhausted from overwork and long hours traveling. One morning when I was sitting at the kitchen table propping up my head and barely able to keep my eyes open, my then 17-year old son bounded into the kitchen, bright eyed and bushy tailed and announced, "I had a GREAT sleep last night!" To which I muttered "Good for you." My kids still laugh at that.
So, when you tell me how wonderfully well the system has worked for you, all I can say is "Good for you, Alan."
I agree with Jane. And I'm surprised at the degree to which pragmatic, rational people here are so willing to accept such inefficiencies and cost overruns and lack of transparency in this industry. The system is clearly broken. Would you accept having to go through 3 different institutions to buy one pair of shoes that you have to buy but which have no price tags, mainly because if you knew how much they'd cost you wouldn't be able to buy them?
There's a theory that all the people who think this is such a great system, and that their insurance is wonderful, have never really been sick. Junk insurance is rampant in the market.
Michael Moore's Sicko was an eye-opener. An oldie but goodie.
My wife had breast cancer a few years ago. We both felt she had excellent care. She had surgery, chemo, and radiation. Still is on medication and has regular checkups.
There was no waiting, she had surgery promptly, along with care afterwards.
Im not sure what everything cost, but insurance paid for the bulk of it. I’m not sure what she pays for medicine now, but I don’t notice the cost so it must not be to bad. This is private insurance that I pay out of pocket for. We are both retired and under 65.
Im happy with the insurance. But I did save and have it in my retirement budget. Before that with both of us working we would have been covered at work.
I think that like most large and complex situations, the best approach is probably a lot of smaller tweaks on a local or regional basis rather than some sweeping grand strategy that implements a central new authority to impose a final solution. I don’t think socialism, however you wish to qualify it, is particularly good at that for a large, heterogeneous society like ours. If that makes me a heartless monster, I’m fine with that.
I don’t think socialism, however you wish to qualify it, is particularly good at that for a large, heterogeneous society like ours.
Norway - population 5.35 million
Finland - population 5.51 million
Washington State - population 7.54 million
Sweden - population 10.12 million
California State - population 39.56 million
USA - population 327.2 million
In Canada provinces administer the single payer system. I would be fine with states doing the same though it would not be as fair a system (pity the person in Mississippi) as a Federal one but it would be a start.
ApatheticNoMore
2-25-20, 7:15pm
In Canada provinces administer the single payer system. I would be fine with states doing the same though it would not be as fair a system (pity the person in Mississippi) as a Federal one but it would be a start.
well the states could do it maybe if they were ALL required to (only then why not have a Federal system, but then I guess it is just administering). If left up to a states discretion how do you prevent every sick person in the country from moving to the state that decided to go single payer? I think it would only work with long prior residency requirements in that state maybe.
Canada had a 9 month waiting period for those coming from another province when I lived there.
frugal-one
2-25-20, 9:16pm
So Alan, do you feel that there is a problem here that Americans need to come together to work on for the benefit for all, or do you feel that the current system is working and should not be tampered with?
Not trying to put you into an either or here, just not quite understanding what you are saying.
I believe we should be able to choose... not medicare for all ... whether you want it or not. Surprisingly, I agree with Alan on this point.
The South Carolina audience was a little different, applauding more for moderates and booing some negative attacks. Klobuchar, Warren and Buttigieg, polling poorly in the state, did not take much incoming fire. Sanders and Biden both got angry and yelled. Bloomberg did better than last time but not well. This was Steyer's best debate IMO. Warren went after Bloomberg directly, and drew a distinction with Sanders and others but not by name on the filibuster. Buttigieg then jumped on her issue getting all smirky and critical of Sanders. I was so wishing someone would call him out on his recently publicized plagiarism of Obama's speeches.
There was minimal coverage of foreign affairs and only one question from a regular person via Twitter.
I would still like an unmoderated debate with a referee only where all questions are by candidates to other candidates.
ApatheticNoMore
2-25-20, 11:11pm
I believe we should be able to choose... not medicare for all ... whether you want it or not. Surprisingly, I agree with Alan on this point.
Well the best way to do this is just provide everyone with Medicare at no charge to themselves funded entirely via taxes, and if they wish to go outside Medicare let them. But first Medicare should be free to all like public schools, private schools still exist but public schools exist for everyone who wishes to use them (well for kids ha), at no charge.
Well the best way to do this is just provide everyone with Medicare at no charge to themselves funded entirely via taxes, and if they wish to go outside Medicare let them. But first Medicare should be free to all like public schools, private schools still exist but public schools exist for everyone who wishes to use them (well for kids ha), at no charge.
+1
frugal-one
2-26-20, 5:58am
Well the best way to do this is just provide everyone with Medicare at no charge to themselves funded entirely via taxes, and if they wish to go outside Medicare let them. But first Medicare should be free to all like public schools, private schools still exist but public schools exist for everyone who wishes to use them (well for kids ha), at no charge.
It is NOT the best way. Many already have great insurance plans. They should not be taxed for medicare when it is not néeded or wanted. There should be a choice.
frugal-one
2-26-20, 5:59am
I think that like most large and complex situations, the best approach is probably a lot of smaller tweaks on a local or regional basis rather than some sweeping grand strategy that implements a central new authority to impose a final solution. I don’t think socialism, however you wish to qualify it, is particularly good at that for a large, heterogeneous society like ours. If that makes me a heartless monster, I’m fine with that.
Yikes, I agree with you.
It is NOT the best way. Many already have great insurance plans. They should not be taxed for medicare when it is not néeded or wanted. There should be a choice.
I have one of those "great" insurance plans. My deductible is "only" $400, compared to $3000 at my previous job. Half of Americans do not have the funds to handle a $400 emergency. Last year our deductible was $250. Our premiums, 90% of which our employer pays, also went up this year. I pay $21 a week but they pay much more. It has cut onto the profitability of the company. Everyone received one less week of profit sharing for 2019 despite record revenues in part because of this high cost.
People do not go to the doctor early on because of out of pocket costs. Two in my location of 40 have landed up with pneumonia as a result, and one had to be hospitalized.
We have a PPO and there is no cap on out of pocket 50% coinsurance for out of network providers including radiologists if you need an x-ray or anesthesiologists if you need surgery. Preventive procedures are not always coded as such to prevent this. For instance, if you have ever had even the most benign colon polyp all future colonoscopies are considered diagnostic and cost thousands in out of pocket expenses if you have not met your deductible and due to hospital providers about whom you cannot know if they are in network. The company wants to encourage preventive care and offers a paid day off for a colonoscopy in addition to regular sick days but people still don't go because of the costs.
My parents have "good' insurance. My dad's former employer provides a health concierge to assist them in navigating the choices in all the Medicare parts and covers most of the premium costs of supplemental coverage, but they still pay thousands of dollars in out of pocket costs, spend countless hours on the phone with insurance companies, and have lots of paperwork to seek reimbursement for things. To keep down prescription costs they use a mail order pharmacy but the post office several times per year will deliver the package to the wrong address where it will sometimes sit out in the hot sun until it is found and redelivered. They have a PO box but either the service can't or won't deliver certain drugs to it. They are okay now but when one of them passes away the other will be hard put to afford out of pocket medical costs.
Most people want a government plan, including most people in the audience when Sanders went on Fox News.
catherine
2-26-20, 10:01am
Great insurance plans are vestiges of the past. I would not call the Amerihealth I had up until I was Medicare-eligible "great." My husband had to change doctors because of plan changes, we had very high deductibles, high premiums and high copays and high bills that took months to pay off. Since being on Medicare, The only thing I have to worry about is paying my Medicare, supplemental Medicare, and prescription plan bills, all of which are one third of the premiums of my private insurance.
And we get excellent care.
Yikes, I agree with you.
About the states not being subservient to the feds, or about me being a heartless monster?
ApatheticNoMore
2-26-20, 10:21am
Employer plans can be somewhat better, so if you have an employer sugar-daddy it works.
ACA plans where to start, very expensive, very few doctors take them (very narrow networks and I chose a plan had had a larger network than most), so if you think you can go to a doctor of your choosing, no in reality you'll have a hard time finding a doctor who takes an ACA plan period (better to just do Kaiser or something if you are going ACA but also very expensive). And yes I've had doctors offices straight out tell me we don't take ACA plans period, and this is a blue state that has tried hard to make the ACA work (heck CA even reinstated the tax penalty on the state level), not in some red state trying to sabotage it. So it is definitely in all possible respects just insurance for the poor that noone really cares about, second tier doesn't begin to describe it.
So since so few doctors do, very long waits to see any doctor who takes the plan, often several months wait for a basic doctor visit. Of course I was giving up and paying cash, not even using my useless insurance eventually, there are no words for how much I hated that insurance bill knowing the insurance was very expensive and yet basically useless for all practical purposes but feeling I *should* have it or something. I never felt I got less for my money ever almost (well I also hate AT&T but I get more for my money from them even :) ). The reality is if you are going through the ACA or ACA equivalent plans you can not get plans that equal a decent employer plan, you are just plain out of luck. You have to accept very inferior health coverage. Employer plans are degrading too, but not in my experience to the degree of the ACA.
iris lilies
2-26-20, 12:04pm
I have started seeing a direct-care physician, which means I pay a flat fee for access to her.It is very reasonably priced.
I forgot to mention the most telling moment in the debate. Bloomberg began talking about candidates he made large contributions to. He started saying, "I bought" then corrected himself to say something like "I supported..." Beware the Freudian slip.
Teacher Terry
2-26-20, 10:33pm
IL, yes you are in a tiny town where that kind of service is cheap. Can’t imagine wanting to live there.
I’ve been to Herman. It’s a lovely area and town.
I just looked at images of Herman--boy, it really looks like Galena! I loved Galena when we lived in Illinois, and we had friends with houses there.
IL, yes you are in a tiny town where that kind of service is cheap. Can’t imagine wanting to live there.
Haha, to each their own, TT! You'd REALLY hate my town. As for me, I'm so done with traffic and strip malls.
IL, yes you are in a tiny town where that kind of service is cheap. Can’t imagine wanting to live there.
Is health care cheap in “tiny towns”? I would have thought the opposite was true.
iris lilies
2-28-20, 9:55am
Is health care cheap in “tiny towns”? I would have thought the opposite was true.
I have no idea. I just know that it’s easy to get around. I don’t have to negotiate giant parking garages that go to the sky and find my dr’s office in a maze on a 10th floor. Same for mammogram test.
But the healthcare options here are very limited and I will run up against that limitation very soon, I imagine.
catherine
2-28-20, 10:21am
I have no idea. I just know that it’s easy to get around. I don’t have to negotiate giant parking garages that go to the sky and find my dr’s office in a maze on a 10th floor. Same for mammogram te
But the healthcare options here are very limited and I will run up against that limitation very soon, I imagine.
We have one health center on the Islands, which is good for physicals. No 3-month wait for appointments. Very friendly and thorough service. Plus, they're affiliated with UVM Medical Center which is only 30 minutes away. Not as good as being within 10 minutes of a good hospital, but it's not bad for a rural island.
My brother also lives on an island. They have a little health center next door. It is great for things like upper respiratory infections etc. It is slow for dealing with referrals for more complicated things, and my brother had a lesion that they would not give him a referral to, and they ended up going down to Boston and going to a walk-in urgent care place, which got an appointment for the following day for my brother's skin cancer.
When jobs were no longer an issue and I could live wherever I wanted. I chose a small rust-belt midwestern city (about 35,000) on the shore of a Great Lake. Like the people, like the climate, like the culture. We can get to major cities when needed in a couple of hours without incurring the costs and inconveniences of living there. All the necessities and many of the luxuries are a few minutes away. No opera houses or Vietnamese-Tunisian restaurants in town, but my experience has been that big city dwellers brag about those things more than they use them.
So far, it’s been a good compromise between rural peace and urban excitement.
Teacher Terry
2-28-20, 1:34pm
It sounds like IL has cheap HC because her unlimited access to her doctor isn’t expensive. We go to all the events here which is weekly 7 months of the year. We also like to go to different restaurants.
iris lilies
2-28-20, 2:04pm
When jobs were no longer an issue and I could live wherever I wanted. I chose a small rust-belt midwestern city (about 35,000) on the shore of a Great Lake. Like the people, like the climate, like the culture. We can get to major cities when needed in a couple of hours without incurring the costs and inconveniences of living there. All the necessities and many of the luxuries are a few minutes away. No opera houses or Vietnamese-Tunisian restaurants in town, but my experience has been that big city dwellers brag about those things more than they use them.
So far, it’s been a good compromise between rural peace and urban excitement.
Funny you should mention Vietnamese because yeah – I do eat Vietnamese regularly. I would say that’s the one cuisine we go out to eat for 3 out of 5 times. Vietnamese is great because it’s very flavorful and it’s low calories, they don’t inject a lot of fat into the cooking. So see you thought you were being a smart ass, but in reality everyone should eat Vietnamese! But no ?Vietnamese for me in Hermann!
But truthfully, and this will make teacher Terry happy, I have on two or three separate occasions felt a wave of panic/ claustrophobia when am in downtown Hermann thinking oh my gosh, this it IT. This is all there is! This, plus our low 8’ foot ceilings in our bungalow make me feel a little cramped.But then I try to think about the big wide windows in our bungalow, they are 52 inches wide and they’re on three sides of the living room so they let in a lot of light. This is in contrast to the narrow slits of windows in our Victorian townhouse.
But you all know my plan to keep an apartment in the city of St. Louis for a few years anyway.
iris lilies
2-28-20, 4:05pm
In Hermann I live 3 minutes from the local hospital. I doubt it is “good”. It it is what it is.
In St. Louis I live 3 minutes from the best trauma center for gunshot wounds in the region. This is useful. Perhaps.
Teacher Terry
2-28-20, 5:28pm
IL, it’s useful if you are a gang banger:))
iris lilies
2-28-20, 5:58pm
IL, it’s useful if you are a gang banger:))
I imagine the Hermann hospital is good at treating diseases of old white people: heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, etc.
My nearby hospital in the city is specialized for the population it serves, too.
I imagine the Hermann hospital is good at treating diseases of old white people: heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, etc.
My nearby hospital in the city is specialized for the population it serves, too.
I guess a marketing person would compliment them both for knowing their customer base! 😜
Wow, I did a little research into diseases of old black people:
https://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/why-7-deadly-diseases-strike-blacks-most#1
That's really sad, I think.
When I lived in South Carolina, diabetes was rampant. The doctor who lectured on it said he considered it a byproduct of the lowcountry diet.
I miss that diet!
rosarugosa
2-29-20, 8:14am
Wow, I did a little research into diseases of old black people:
https://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/why-7-deadly-diseases-strike-blacks-most#1
That's really sad, I think.
When I lived in South Carolina, diabetes was rampant. The doctor who lectured on it said he considered it a byproduct of the lowcountry diet.
I miss that diet!
That was an interesting read. Thanks for posting, Tybee.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.