Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Thepersona]

Does your country have the population the United States does? Is it spread out in 50 different states that have laws that just affect the people within those borders? Will everything in one part of the country be the same as all parts of the country? Can you prove that a system that works for 18 million will work just as good for over 300 million? No, because the United States is different from every other country. The aca proved one thing, the government sucks at trying to take over a huge part of the American economy and made things worse. I have the same doctor and same plan but my premiums went up over 200%. But I pay for it, and I will pay for better healthcare if universal healthcare was passed, because I don't ration my children's livelihood.

My country has about 1% or less of your gdp. And having more people is better, when implementing socialized medicine (economies of scale and all that jazz).
And no, it's not the same in every part, because land is not people, and it does not need healthcare.

[TexasRules]

I am always confused by people who say "but we can't do it because we are a big country"

As if having a population of 300m+ means nothing suddenly, as if fucking land is people... I think they let how our electoral college works bleed into how they think the damn world works.

Apparently with a population of 300mn the USA is too big and apparently lacks people who can implement the system, because we all know there is a hard cap on the amount of people a country is allowed to implement policies. That's why UK Canada and the USA all have the exact same number of people for implementing policies. Doesn't matter that America is the 3rd largest country we have a mysterious cap which means scale doesn't actually mean anything.

Like honestly what in the world are these people thinking?

So why doesn't every state have medical marijuana laws? There's a hard cap on people who implement policies, explain please.

- - - Updated - - -

My country has about 1% or less of your gdp. And having more people is better, when implementing socialized medicine (economies of scale and all that jazz)

Except that every state has it's own laws, policies, regulations. You think the health code for a restaurant is the same in every state? I am sure some of it is, maybe some have more, some have less.
Here's another thing, Sanders wants open borders and medicare for all AND for everyone to have the same rights in America as it's citizens. You think that's going to fly for immigrants who took years to become a citizen to enjoy America's freedoms?

- - - Updated - - -

You showed a poll in how people feel, not how people are going to vote.

I showed a poll in how people are going to Vote.

Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that.

It's the same fucking poll, I linked it. It's the CBS/YOUGOV poll, it even shows it in YOUR picture. You didn't even read that when I linked it, how is that so hard for you to understand?

[Themius]

So why doesn't every state have medical marijuana laws? There's a hard cap on people who implement policies, explain please.

- - - Updated - - -



Except that every state has it's own laws, policies, regulations. You think the health code for a restaurant is the same in every state? I am sure some of it is, maybe some have more, some have less.
Here's another thing, Sanders wants open borders and medicare for all AND for everyone to have the same rights in America as it's citizens. You think that's going to fly for immigrants who took years to become a citizen to enjoy America's freedoms?

- - - Updated - - -



It's the same fucking poll, I linked it. It's the CBS/YOUGOV poll, it even shows it in YOUR picture. You didn't even read that when I linked it, how is that so hard for you to understand?

The idea we can't have policies passed because we have too many people is dumb... the idea that x thing can't work because we are too big is dumb...

Why?

Simple, look at per capita rates for each country, and then ask the question. "Does the USA meet or exceed on a per capita rate compared to other countries" this idea that raw numbers are all that matters is... just no.. that's not how things work.

Listen... go take a basic economics class.

[szechuan]

Here's another thing, Sanders wants open borders

Another Lie, he doesn't.

[Endus]

Except that every state has it's own laws, policies, regulations. You think the health code for a restaurant is the same in every state? I am sure some of it is, maybe some have more, some have less.

I'm not sure how you think this is an argument.

Canada's provinces and territories have their own laws, policies, and regulations. We manage it just fine.
The American federal and State governments work this stuff out with every other issue; why would health care be any different?

Here's another thing, Sanders wants open borders and medicare for all AND for everyone to have the same rights in America as it's citizens. You think that's going to fly for immigrants who took years to become a citizen to enjoy America's freedoms?

Sanders isn't pushing for open borders. You're lying.

[szechuan]

It's the same fucking poll, I linked it. It's the CBS/YOUGOV poll, it even shows it in YOUR picture. You didn't even read that when I linked it, how is that so hard for you to understand?

What's so hard for you to understand that You were talking about a poll about Feelings and not about how people are going to vote?

Are you that ignorant?

[TexasRules]

In order;
1> No, but higher populations bring economies of scale that makes things less expensive and more practical. Not less. It's an advantage for the USA.
2> 10 provinces and three territories, and yes, they all manage their own health care, with federal regulation. The number here really doesn't matter. It doesn't make it in any way more complex. Each State would deal with their own affairs, and the federal regs would be the same for everyone.
3> Again, economies of scale mean larger numbers are easier to handle, not more difficult or more expensive. Per-capita costs get lower.
4> Every country is different from every other country. Out of developed nations, 32 of the 33 of us have figured out a way to handle universal health care. The USA's the only one pretending it's impossible, despite having 32 effective examples to draw from.

Your entire post is a laundry list of disinformation. These aren't honest questions. They have incredibly obvious answers.

You think it's just as easy for 50 to have the same view as 13? Guess all 50 will easily look at abortion and medical marijuana the same. So also you seem to think that the rich control all the money, the top percent as you guys drone on and on about, but think that the higher population will make things less expensive? Like prescription drugs now. I like how everyone is an expert on economies now. I am no expert, but you guys seem to think the bottom people here get nothing, but would somehow make things cheaper if they multiplied? All this population boom going to somehow make things cheaper?

And please show me a country that has over 300 million people with socialized medicare that works.

[Sunseeker]

Stop feeding the guy who is clearly posting disingenuously.

[TexasRules]

What's so hard for you to understand that You were talking about a poll about Feelings and not about how people are going to vote?

Are you that ignorant?

I give up dude. The same people who answer who they would vote for are not good enough to say their candidate would lose. You win, their opinion about who they are voting for is rock solid, but their opinion that guy would lose is a feeling not worth using. They can't vote yet , and the actual poll says people changed their mind among candidates, but their rock solid word right now means everything and their opinion about the guy they would cast a vote for means nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop feeding the guy who is clearly posting disingenuously.

You're right, I will stop feeding him

[Endus]

You think it's just as easy for 50 to have the same view as 13?

Yes. Obviously.

From the perspective of the federal government, it doesn't matter if there's 5 or 50. They set the same regulations and standards, regardless of the number.

From the perspective of any given State, it doesn't matter how many other States there are; they're only making their own rules.

It's exactly as easy. Adding more States or provinces does not increase the difficulty in any respect whatsoever.

Guess all 50 will easily look at abortion and medical marijuana the same.

This is completely irrelevant. If the federal government sets regulations, they'd be beholden to those. If not, then not. Same as it is now.

So also you seem to think that the rich control all the money, the top percent as you guys drone on and on about, but think that the higher population will make things less expensive? Like prescription drugs now.

When you can buy in bulk, you get lower prices, yes. Welcome to basic concepts in economics theory; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

I like how everyone is an expert on economies now.

If you bothered to flip through the introductory text for Econ 101, you'd get this stuff explained. It's elementary basics; it doesn't require any expertise.

I am no expert, but you guys seem to think the bottom people here get nothing, but would somehow make things cheaper if they multiplied? All this population boom going to somehow make things cheaper?

There is no "population boom".
You're focusing on absolute pricing, when the only relevant measure is per-capita, which by definition, doesn't care about population size.

And please show me a country that has over 300 million people with socialized medicare that works.

The bit in bold is where you set an arbitrary and deliberately dishonest standard. There's nothing about that figure that would create new limitations over a nation of 30 or 80 million.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop feeding the guy who is clearly posting disingenuously.

If the mods won't ban people for dishonest posting like this, the only option remaining is debunking it. The alternative is letting the lies sit there, where the uninformed might think they have an argument.

[Sunseeker]

If the mods won't ban people for dishonest posting like this, the only option remaining is debunking it. The alternative is letting the lies sit there, where the uninformed might think they have an argument.

Riiiiigh, because "debunking" as worked on this forum when?

[szechuan]

and the actual poll says people changed their mind among candidates

Want to point out where you're getting the nonexistent "Actual Poll" in the link you provided?

The majority polls in fact Indicate that Bernie is currently winning against a Match up against Trump.

[Masark]

Can we make this a semi-closed primary thread?

[Edge-]

There's a lot of "ifs" in those studies and I am not sure you can actually quantify any of those numbers without showing which of those plans they intended to use?

Well...yes...no duh. When you're projecting out the future, you have to rely on a ton of assumptions based off of current data, so of course it will qualify things with "if" a lot. These people are analysts, not fortune tellers.

It's great to pretend it saves money, but which proposal will not force out the rural hospitals

I always enjoy people treating this possibility as if it's new. Y'all, this shit has been happening under the current system in droves - http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/progr...ital-closures/

Because, unsurprisingly, the current system isn't great.

And guess who benefits when more people in poverty have access to health care via not needing to worry about cost?

Rural hospitals.

Why? Because part of the issue with them is that they often have to treat uninsured patients and...well, they're eating a lot of those costs. Which leads to more expenses to try to chase down delinquent payees who may not have had a choice to go to the hospital. Or they just garnish their wages. None of which are good for hospitals, or people.

or force patients to drive distances to get basic healthcare.

Again, that's already happening - https://www.foxnews.com/us/rural-ame...emergency-care

And, if by expanding the pool of people paying to go to hospitals and ensuring that payments are made by the government, that stands to improve the financials even more. Less money lost due to inability to pay, less money lost paying people to argue with insurance companies/patients about payments, less time for lawyers to spend pointlessly suing poor people for bills they can't pay etc.

Pretty much all the "OH NOES, THIS WILL BE A DISASTER!" scenarios you and others bring up are already happening all over the country. Especially for people in rural communities and on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

You can not generalize like they do in that article if you can not pinpoint what exactly is being paid for.

But, when you have nearly two dozens studies on different implementations of medicare for all and they all come to the same conclusion...then I think that they're signaling that the foundation for the policy is itself, sound and a cost-saving measure.

It also assumes that drug prices would go down substantially.

If the US could negotiate on drug prices, they would go down substantially. Like every other country with nationalized payment systems/health care do. The collective bargaining power of the entire US population is a powerful thing, my friend.

Do you have a link to an actual plan that shows exactly how that money would work, or just an article about a study ?

Hey man, I don't know if they'll have your "exact" plan. I don't even know what that is. And it's also not a claim that's ever been made by the Sanders or Warren camp. So yeah, you very well may lose your fancy plan. But you know what? You'd still be covered for everything. You'd have to spend even less time haggling with insurance and dealing with the assistants at the front desk hassling with insurance. You'll spend less overall and won't have to worry about/consider copays, deductibles, or out of pocket maximums. You may have to wait a bit longer for non-urgent issues, but again as I've said, the "NO PRIVATE INSURANCE AT ALL" thing ain't gonna fly. Ever.

Hell, M4A itself is a pie in the sky objective and there ain't a chance in hell it gets done in 4 or even 8 years. That's a massive undertaking that will take multiple administrations to see through, and the country clearly isn't ready for it. They weren't ready for the ACA, which was a baby step towards M4A, but 8 years later people are realizing that they like a whole lot of what it included (longer coverage for your kids, no rejections for pre-existing conditions, expanded medicaid etc.) and don't want to give it up.

[TexasRules]

The bit in bold is where you set an arbitrary and deliberately dishonest standard. There's nothing about that figure that would create new limitations over a nation of 30 or 80 million.

- - - Updated - - -




If the mods won't ban people for dishonest posting like this, the only option remaining is debunking it. The alternative is letting the lies sit there, where the uninformed might think they have an argument.

So you can't prove that it woudl work on the scale of the United States, but that is me being dishonest. Decriminalizing illegal immigration is not open borders, for sure.

And I will take the ban right now, but FUCK OFF. You intentionally argued with Connal in a thread and reported it knowing he would get banned and you wouldn't. Last time the 5 points wasn't enough so flairlane infracted the same post a second time for 4 points for signature violation...I don't have a signature and I have had the same avatar since I started. All you mods like to censor just because I don't agree with your liberal policies and the fact you can't show that what works for 30 million will definitely work for 300 million. You trust a government that has already proven it can not do healthcare to try it on a larger scale and include everyone, all from your high perch in Canada. You're just a pretend intellectual who wants everything to be like your country, like half the people who post here and want to tell America how much better they have it and whine about another nation's leader...bashing America and it's leader is okay on this board, it is the way. So much bashing that goes unmitigated, yet you smugly think the mods should censor a citizen talking about his country to people who don't live here, I repeat give me the ban and FUCK OFF.

[Thepersona]

If you bothered to flip through the introductory text for Econ 101, you'd get this stuff explained. It's elementary basics; it doesn't require any expertise.


.

I take personal offense on this, as i actually have a degree on business and economics and plan to have a masters degree on public policies/data analysis (as soon as i have the money).
Texasrules, i've studied economics. they were part of my curriculum. I'm no master of it, as my degree is not pure economics, but i know a little bit of this.

[Theodarzna]

So you trust the same braintrust that came up with the ACA to do universal healthcare?

No, because the people who came up with the ACA did so on purpose. The same people who crafted the ACA run the private health insurance industry.

I trust a service that is universal, that isn't designed to annoy me and doesn't cost me boatloads out of pocket.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we make this a semi-closed primary thread?

What would that even mean?

[TexasRules]

Want to point out where you're getting the nonexistent "Actual Poll" in the link you provided?

The majority polls in fact Indicate that Bernie is currently winning against a Match up against Trump.

see how your little picture says it got it's numbers form the cbsnews/yougov poll, it's on cbs' website, unbelievably and I somehow linked it once already but I know reading is hard
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-po...cted-cbs-news/

- - - Updated - - -

What would that even mean?

He only wants liberal people to be able to post, it's called censorship

[szechuan]

So you can't prove that it woudl work on the scale of the United States, but that is me being dishonest.
All you mods like to censor just because I don't agree with your liberal policies and the fact you can't show that what works for 30 million will definitely work for 300 million.

He gave you link and provided why it can work.

Decriminalizing illegal immigration is not open borders, for sure.

He isn't Decriminalizing Illegal immigration, there will still be Penalties if caught crossing the Border.

- - - Updated - - -

see how your little picture says it got it's numbers form the cbsnews/yougov poll, it's on cbs' website, unbelievably and I somehow linked it once already but I know reading is hard
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-po...cted-cbs-news/

LMAO, Where does it say in the polls that people changed their mind among candidates like you suggests?

The Majority of polls are currently showing Bernie winning against a match up to trump.

[Elegiac]

Hey since people are apparently saying "but drug costs are too high", do you know what progressive policy actually polls really, really well even in red states?

Price fixing for drugs. No additional taxes required.